***************************************************************** 08/18/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.191 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] How Bush Would Gain from War with Iran 2 Economist: Iran's nuclear game 3 Korea Herald: Roh backs N.K.'s peaceful use of nuclear energy 4 Korea Herald: U.S. backs Korean peace treaty - Hill 5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: ĄŻU.S. Could Come Round on N.K. Nuclear E 6 MDN: Russia's envoy: Pyongyang could drop nuclear bid if it feels no 7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Hill hopes for nuclear deal in two months 8 Xinhua: Russia, DPRK discuss nuclear issue 9 Rediff: 'US wants to cap our nuclear programme' 10 Seattle Times: Pentagon report sounds warning on China's submarine a 11 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, China Kick Off Military Exercises 12 Review: Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear 13 UK: News & Star: Time to choose: nuclear energy or wind power? 14 NME: The Cure help the release of jailed Belarusian scientist - NUCLEAR REACTORS 15 [NukeNet] Earthquake in Tohoku Japan 16 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear PR campaign 17 AU ABC: NT Opposition seeks nuclear power debate 18 Bangkok Post: The 'non-existent' nuclear option 19 RIA Novosti: Rosenergoatom against privatizing nuclear power industr 20 Xinhua: India decides to join as full member at ITER project 21 US: NRC: In the Matter of Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Establish 22 Deccan Herald: Work on setting up of nine nuke plants in full swing 23 The Australian: Nuclear power plays NUCLEAR SECURITY 24 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Two Public Meetings on Proposed National Source NUCLEAR SAFETY 25 US: The Great DU Awakening 26 US: Irradiating Shellfish 27 [DU-WATCH] The Ecological Implications of the War 28 US: Radiation experts concur Pentagon was struck by a missile 29 US: Hawk Eye: Harkin honors IAAP warriors 30 US: WOI: Former IAAP workers, families deal with delays NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 31 AU ABC: NT Senator under fire for missing nuclear dump vote 32 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Nuclear waste site bids 33 SitNews: Ultimate Job Security 34 Bellona: Construction of nuclear submarine reactor storage facility 35 US: Bellona: HEU-LEU program reached the middle 36 US: Bellona: Turkish officials bust peddlers of Russia-origin uraniu 37 US: The Herald: Idyllic atoll may become world’s biggest source of u 38 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear institute chief says industry needs help on Y 39 US: Daily Sentinel: Uranium boom gives new lease on mine land 40 US: NEWS.com.au: World scrambles for NT uranium 41 US: LA Daily News: Vessels installed to purge perchlorate from the w 42 US: The Boston Globe: Utah firm to aid West Concord cleanup - 43 US: lamonitor.com: Lab ships plutonium sources to WIPP 44 US: DailyBulletin.com: Questionnaire will gauge knowledge on former 45 Whitehaven News: Second waste site on cards PEACE 46 [NukeNet] Comparative Aerial Imagery of Hiroshima Pre- and 47 asahi.com: 60 Years on/ Her A-bomb secret just wouldn't keep any lon US DEPT. OF ENERGY 48 The State: SRS operator hires Thurmond 49 Seattle Times: Hanford takes 2 large cleanup steps 50 KTVB.COM: DOE plans to detonate truck bombs to test nuclear site sec 51 CGT: Deputy energy secretary visits Hanford, announces progress on t ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] How Bush Would Gain from War with Iran Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:44:07 -0500 (CDT) WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Guardian via TruthOut - Aug 16, 2005 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081605M.shtml Also see below: Iran: A Crisis of Choice How Bush Would Gain from War with Iran By Dan Plesch The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved. President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support. A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration. America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran. A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan. The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced. Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq. The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire". Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base. It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters. New approaches are needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation. As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves. We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack. [Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace, about which he is speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival.] *** Tom Paine.org - Aug 15, 2005 Iran: A Crisis of Choice By Thomas Graham The controversy over the Iranian nuclear program is neither a new issue nor is it a crisis. But if the United States does not handle this issue carefully, the result could be that Iran would leave both the negotiating table and the Non-Proliferation Treaty and all parties would be worse off. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the first day it was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, and was an Original Party when it entered into force in 1970. However, for at least the last 15 years, there have been suspicions among some in the NPT community about the real objective of the Iranian nuclear program-is it for peaceful electricity or nuclear weapons? The United States, with some justification, has been especially skeptical. In late 2003, Iran confirmed some of those suspicions when it declared that it had been in violation of its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for many years. In essence, Iran had been developing uranium enrichment technology without disclosing this to the IAEA. At the same time, however, Iran denied any intention of building nuclear weapons and pledged cooperation with the IAEA in the future. Iran also promised to join the IAEA's expanded inspection agreement and to temporarily halt uranium enrichment related activities. This temporary suspension was terminated in June, 2004 but was subsequently reinstated. And early in 2004, Iran began negotiating with Britain, France and Germany-representing the European Union-over the future of its program. The objective of the negotiations has been for the Europeans to develop a package of inducements sufficient to persuade Iran to give up that part of its nuclear program that involves an effort to acquire nuclear fuel cycle technology (uranium enrichment and nuclear waste chemical-reprocessing equipment). All along, Iran has asserted that it has a right as an NPT non-nuclear weapon party to acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle, as implied by Article IV of the treaty. But it was clear from the beginning of the negotiation that Iran was interested in not only economic and trade concessions and peaceful nuclear technology cooperation, but also security guarantees-sometimes referred to as non-aggression commitments. The United States did not believe that this process would be successful,although after a time it, did express its support for the European effort. Showing its seriousness during the course of these negotiations, Iran maintained its voluntary suspension of enrichment activities, and the Europeans asserted that resumption of such activities could prevent the negotiations from continuing. Last week, the Europeans put their offer on the table and it was promptly rejected by Iran saying that it did not meet minimum expectations. Based on news reports describing the European offer, it appears to have been quite a good deal in the economic area but vague on security guarantees. Yet the talks are structurally flawed. As long as the United States stays out of the negotiations, the security guarantee, obviously, cannot include any commitment by the United States-the country of greatest concern to Iran. So it should not be a surprise that the offer was rejected. Immediately, Iran recommenced uranium conversion-but not actual enrichment activities-with IAEA inspectors present. This situation is certainly quite serious, but should not be viewed as a crisis. Last week, an article in The Washington Post disclosed the findings of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. That highly classified report included the intelligence community's consensus judgment that Iran remained six to 10 years away from the threshold of a nuclear weapon capability. With this kind of calendar, there remains time for diplomacy to work. Indeed, immediately after Iran rejected the offer from the EU-3, Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in a telephone call to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that he wants to continue negotiations with Europe over the fate of Iran's nuclear program and that he is working on a new set of ideas. President Bush cautiously greeted this as "a positive sign," while the French foreign ministry said that "we think it is still possible to negotiate." And on August 11, the IAEA Board adopted a resolution urging Iran to re-establish "full suspension of all enrichment related activities." The resolution charged the IAEA Director General, Mohammed El Baradei, to report to the board on September 3 on whether Iran was carrying out the terms of the resolution. But the diplomatic opportunities that remain would likely collapse if the West pushes for the case of Iran to be brought before the U.N. Security Council in an effort to have sanctions imposed. In any case, it is likely that Russia and China would use their vetoes to scuttle an Iran sanction proposal. But even if the Security Council somehow could be persuaded to adopt sanctions, this would seem unlikely to change Iran's behavior and the negotiations would no longer exist. Indeed, sanctions could have the effect of actually further weakening the international non-proliferation regime. This is so because Iran might, under such circumstances, consider withdrawal from the NPT so that it had no more nuclear obligations. A daily newspaper reported as close to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, said last week in its lead editorial that Iran should withdraw from the NPT if its case was simply sent to the Security Council. There has been one recent withdrawal from the NPT-North Korea-another, especially Iran, would be most unfortunate. But America is sending mixed signals. Reports that India may have obtained a better deal from the United States with respect to cooperation in nuclear technology outside the NPT than Iran could ever obtain inside the treaty could make officials in Tehran wonder what the NPT is doing for Iran. This is not the kind of message that we should be sending. Thus, it is difficult to see how U.N. sanctions could be a practical course of action. The best chance for favorable resolution of this issue remains at the negotiating table. Director General El Baradei said last Thursday that the only way forward "is through negotiation." In conclusion, it is very much in the interest of the United States and the world community to pursue diplomatic measures to find an arrangement with which all parties to this dispute can be comfortable and that will give strong incentives to Iran to stay within the non-proliferation community. As a nation, we have the time and capacity to do this right. [Ambassador Thomas Graham is currently senior counsel at the law firm of Morgan Lewis. He served as a senior US diplomat negotiating every arms control agreement over the last 30 years.] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 Economist: Iran's nuclear game Economist.com Playing hardball And no sign of backing down Aug 18th 2005 Ali Larijani, nuclear negotiator IN LESS than a month's time, Iran's new government, which has yet even to be sworn in by parliament, could find itself in the dock at the UN Security Council for restarting nuclear work last week at its uranium-conversion plant at Isfahan. Breaking the seals put on Isfahan by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear guardian, also broke the terms of Iran's agreement last year with Britain, France and Germany to suspend all such dabbling with uranium and also with plutonium, two materials that could be used for bomb-making, while their talks continued. Restarting the plant likewise defied repeated IAEA resolutions, including one passed at an emergency meeting last week, calling on Iran to suspend all such nuclear work. For a government barely in office, this is giving quick offence. Why take on the world so quickly? And what are the chances now of curbing the regime's presumed nuclear ambitions? The next diplomatic set-piece will be at the IAEA, whose inspectors will report formally on September 3rd about just what Iran is up to at Isfahan, where yellowcake (uranium ore) is converted into a gas that can later be spun in centrifuge machines to make usable uranium. Iran insists that it has every right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to make uranium fuel for civilian power reactors, and that is all it wants to do. But two decades of lies and evasions uncovered by inspectors leave many governments unconvinced. After rejecting out of hand a raft of European proposalsincluding co-operation in other civilian nuclear technologies, as well as improved trade, political and security tiesIran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said Iran will present some ideas of its own to break the deadlock. Yet its new chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, appointed at the behest of the country's ruling clerics, insisted this week that uranium conversion will never be stopped; future talks, he said, would concern only the conditions under which Iran will restart work at an enrichment plant it is building at Natanz. If Iran sticks to its guns, the IAEA's board will reconvene later in September, with little choice but to refer it to the Security Council. There the stance of Russia and China, both veto-wielding members, will be crucial. Indeed, Iran may well be counting on their help. Yet Russia, increasingly worried about Iran's intentions, would likely back an initial resolution calling on Iran to comply with IAEA requests. It could help too, argues Henry Sokolski of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Centre (NPEC), a Washington-based think-tank, if the IAEA's board or the council were to call for nuclear co-operation with Iran to be suspended until inspectors are certain they have a full accounting of its nuclear past. That would give Russia legal cover formally to suspend its work on Iran's Bushehr reactor. China then might be loth to cast a lone veto. But the difficulty of getting beyond a wrist-slap from the council explains why the Europeans have been in no rush to get there. By reacting calmly in the face of the crisis Iran has now provoked, they hope to keep it squarely on the spot. Iran's tactics, by contrast, are to force the pace in the hopes of cracking European solidarity, splitting the Europeans from America, and appealing over their heads to those governments chary of setting a restrictive precedent on nuclear fuel-making that could hamper their own nuclear ambitions. Iran's recent intemperate behaviour ought to strengthen the Europeans' hand. Yet the difficulties of keeping even the European three on message are already apparent. Caught up in his own re-election effort, Germany's chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, broke ranks publicly by ruling out any future military action against Iran (none is planned). The irritation that caused among British and French diplomats, however, is nothing compared with the difficulty they and America will face if Iran continues to balk. Theoretically, the Security Council could take a whole range of measures to make Iran uncomfortable: from selective visa bans for those involved in its nuclear programme, through embargoes of various kinds, to tough economic sanctions. But there is no consensus on any of these. The UN is not the only recourse. But for their part the Europeans, unpractised at common coercive diplomacy, are only just starting to think through the ramifications of what might be needed. One idea doing the rounds if diplomacy goes on failing is for a maritime cordon, based on the practice of the American-led Proliferation Security Initiative, to stop shipments related to Iran's nuclear and other weapons programmes: a sort of PSI for the Gulf region. But making such a cordon tight and effective would be hard, especially without full support from Iran's neighbours, argues Michael Knights in a recent paper for NPEC. Meanwhile Iran has already hinted that if push came to shove, it would not be shy of using its own weapons: chiefly its oil and gas, but it also has a growing navy of its own. It shows no signs of blinking first. Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2005. All rights ***************************************************************** 3 Korea Herald: Roh backs N.K.'s peaceful use of nuclear energy The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper President Roh Moo-hyun yesterday expressed conditional support for North Korea's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The six-party talks aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs became deadlocked earlier this month because of differences over the North's demand that it be allowed to build nuclear power plants even if it disarms any nuclear weapons it may have. The United States wants the North to dismantle all nuclear programs. "Our principal position is that all countries have the right to utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," Cheong Wa Dae officials quoted Roh as saying at meeting with political editors of news organizations based in Seoul. "North Korea also has that right if it gains trust from the international community," he added. President Roh Moo-hyun speaks in a luncheon meeting with political editors of news organizations at Cheong Wa Dae yesterday. [The Korea Herald] Roh didn't elaborate what conditions the North would have to meet to be allowed to run a civilian nuclear program. On Aug. 11, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said that if Pyongyang returns to the agreed conditions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would qualify to have a civilian nuclear program. He expressed optimism that countries involved in the nuclear talks can be more flexible and reach a compromise on the issue. His remarks came as Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon traveled to the United States to fine-tune positions over the nuclear issue. Ban will meet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Aug. 23 ahead of the scheduled resumption of the talks in the week of Aug. 29. The United States maintains its opposition to discussing North Korea's demand for peaceful nuclear programs, insisting the communist state must make a valid pledge to discard all nuclear programs and do so transparently. On domestic issues, Roh said he will soon propose negotiations with opposition parties to discuss his proposal for a grand coalition government and for reforming the electoral system in an effort to end voter regionalism. The opposition Grand National Party has strongly rebuffed the proposal. Roh proposed earlier this month that the GNP lead the formation of his envisioned unified governing system in return for cooperation on his initiative to change the electoral system. The GNP rejected the proposal, accusing Roh of political maneuvering to help him retain presidential powers of office through a constitutional amendment. For the past several months, Roh has expressed willingness to hand over his presidential powers if the opposition parties agreed to align with the ruling Uri Party and cooperate with his ideas for resolving political regionalism. Roh wants to introduce medium and major-sized constituencies instead of the current single-member constituency system, in which the electorate selects one lawmaker in a designated small constituency. A medium or a major-sized constituency system would enhance the election chances of parties that are unpopular in certain regions. "I will suggest official talks with the opposition soon about the coalition. I want the party to consider it more seriously and make a judgment not based on their own political calculations but for the greater interests of the nation," he said. (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee 2005.08.19 ***************************************************************** 4 Korea Herald: U.S. backs Korean peace treaty - Hill The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper Ban to meet Rice Aug. 23 to discuss issues relating to six-party talks The United States is willing to address a long-time North Korean demand for a peace treaty to replace the armistice as a way of providing a security guarantee for the communist regime and ultimately as a security structure for Northeast Asia as a whole, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said. South and North Korea, divided since 1945, remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended with the armistice, not a peace treaty. North Korea has long sought a peace treaty with the United States, claiming that lack of one is proof of U.S. hostility toward its regime. Ą°What we signaled to the DPRK is our interest in pursuing it, if they wish to pursue it," Hill said when the subject of a peace treaty came up at a forum discussion on Wednesday. DPRK, or Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is North Korea's official name. Ą°By signaling our interest in it, by (South Korea) signaling its interest in it, we have signaled clearly to the DPRK that if it wants this and if it sees this as part of... the need to demonstrate to itself or to whoever else that we do not have a hostile policy toward the DPRK, we are certainly prepared to pursue it," he said. Hill's comments suggested Washington was more active than believed in discussing the peace treaty. He said he talked to the Chinese, also a signatory of the armistice, about it not only during the six-party sessions but also in bilateral talks with North Koreans prior to the start of the multilateral negotiations. Hill heads the U.S. delegation to the six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons development. South Korea, China, Japan and Russia are also involved. The latest round of the talks went into recess after 13 days of negotiations failed to produce an agreement, or a "statement of principles" and are expected to resume the week of Aug. 29. Hill also said he had sent a message to his North Korean counterpart through Pyongyang's mission at the United Nations in New York, saying "we should be in touch if there are issues he would like to raise and thatI would be ready to be in touch." U.S. officials will host South Korean and Japanese diplomats next week and Hill hoped to meet or talk by telephone with officials from North Korea, China and Russia before the resumption of talks in the week of Aug. 29, he said. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon will meet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Aug. 23. Hill's Japanese counterpart, Kenichiro Sasae, is expected in Washington around Aug. 25, a State Department official said. Ą°They will be discussing a number of issues regarding the six-party talks," McCormack said about the Rice-Ban meeting, without giving details. He was unable to confirm reports Ban had met Undersecretary for Arms Control Robert Joseph. Hill told the think-tank forum that while human rights are a concern with regards to North Korea, it will not be an issue in getting to an agreement on the nuclear issue. "I am sure that this will not be an impediment to reaching an eventual agreement," he said. Human rights should not be "instrumentalized to torment some country's record," he said. "Rather, it should be used simply as an expression of what are international standards and what the price of the ticket is to the international community." Hill chose to draw a larger picture, one that focused on a fundamental decision required of North Korea and a future security framework for Northeast Asia. The fundamental question, he said, is whether North Korea truly wants to be integrated into the world, whether the issues that are on the negotiation table "are in fact what the Pyongyang leadership wants. And it's a very fundamental question that the DPRK, that North Korea needs to make." Ą°We are not just talking about denuclearization, we are actually building a structure in Northeast Asia... and so the hope is that this sixparty process can be a sort of embryonic structure for Northeast Asia." He characterized the statement of principles, which may boil down to two to three pages, as the end results rather than an enumeration of step-by-step process. "I think what's important is for everyone to know where we are going to end up, and that's what the statement of principles is all about," he said. From news reports 2005.08.19 ***************************************************************** 5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: ĄŻU.S. Could Come Round on N.K. Nuclear EnergyĄŻ > Updated Aug.18,2005 19:53 KST The influential deputy chief of the National Security Council, Lee Jong-seok, hinted Thursday the U.S. could turn out to be less adamant in its refusal to let North Korea have a peaceful nuclear program. Lee said he believed the U.S. attitude in negotiations and its true position would prove not to be the same. Asked during a session of the National Assembly's Defense Committee by Uri Party lawmaker Park Chan-suk whether there was a difference in opinion between Seoul and Washington over North Korea's right to a civilian nuclear program, Lee said Seoul's position was that it would be possible for North Korea to operate a civilian nuclear program once Pyongyang satisfies certain conditions. He said he could not at present give details of the U.S. position on the matter, but Seoul and Washington were currently harmonizing their views. That suggests the two allies have started full-scale talks to narrow their differences while six-party talks in Beijing are in recess. When Grand National Party lawmaker Song Young-sun accused the government of Ą°holding the North's handĄ± although it deceived the world on its nuclear programs for a decade years, Lee retorted, "Even criminals have basic rights. Do you have any other ideas?Ą± (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 6 MDN: Russia's envoy: Pyongyang could drop nuclear bid if it feels no threat MSN-Mainichi Daily News: August 19, 2005 National MOSCOW -- A Russian presidential envoy said Thursday after a trip to Pyongyang that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il had told him that his nation would not need nuclear weapons if it faced no threat from the United States. Konstantin Pulikovsky, President Vladimir Putin's envoy to the Russian Far East, met with Kim when he visited North Korea this week for the 60th anniversary of Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule. "He said that they wouldn't need any single nuclear weapon or missile if they don't face a threat," Pulikovsky quoted Kim as saying in remarks broadcast by Russia's NTV television. "He repeatedly raised this issue: you treat us like any other state, you don't consider us some 'axis of evil' or territory of evil, you don't threaten us, and we wouldn't need nuclear weapons." U.S. President George W. Bush labeled North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address in 2002. Pulikovsky said at a news conference that Kim said that the six-nation talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program have brought "quite positive results," Russian news wires reported. The talks were suspended to give heads of states some time to study the documents and give their directions to negotiators, he quoted Kim as saying. Pulikovsky said that Kim told him Pyongyang could return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but emphasized that North Korea should be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear program. The talks -- among the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia -- are to resume the week of Aug. 29 in Beijing. The North insists it should still have the right to "peaceful" nuclear activities if it gives up its weapons, but Washington wants the communist nation to be nuclear-free. The latest nuclear crisis erupted when U.S. officials said in late 2002 that the North had acknowledged violating a 1994 deal by embarking on a secret uranium enrichment program. Three previous rounds of the six-nation arms talks since 2003 have failed to make any breakthroughs. In February, North Korea claimed it had nuclear weapons and it has since taken steps that would allow it to harvest more plutonium for possible use in bombs. Many experts believe North Korea already has enough weapons-grade material for about a half-dozen atomic weapons. Russia has worked to re-establish Soviet-era ties with the isolated Stalinist state in recent years. Putin has visited North Korea and played host twice to Kim in Russia. Pulikovsky said that Kim had told him that he would like to visit Russia again, but no date for the visit has been set. (AP) August 18, 2005 Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All ***************************************************************** 7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Hill hopes for nuclear deal in two months August 19, 2005 KST 13:14 (GMT+9) August 19, 2005 €Ń WASHINGTON ĄȘ Christopher Hill, the United States' top negotiator to the six-party talks, said on Wednesday that the U.S. hopes to reach an agreement over North Korea's nuclear weapons program within two months, emphasizing that North Korea's security ultimately does not lie with the development of nuclear weapons. "If we can agree on what the sign posts are going to be, if we can agree on what the sort of approach will be, we can put together an agreement, perhaps later in September, October at the very latest, because we really would like to keep the momentum going," Mr. Hill said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. Mr. Hill added that Washington wants to see progress in the negotiations within two months. The two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States recently gathered in Beijing for the fourth round of talks, but failed to reach an agreement, as North Korea repeatedly rejected drafts of a joint statement of principles. The talks are expected to resume on Aug. 29, following a three-week recess. Mr. Hill said he had sent a message to his North Korean counterparts saying that the two countries should remain in touch during the recess. Mr. Hill also said that a peace treaty bringing a legal end to the Korean War had been brought up in Beijing. He said the nuclear disarmament talks were not the appropriate venue to discuss the issue. The Korean War of 1950 to 1953 ended with a ceasefire agreement, and North Korea is technically still at war with South Korea and the U.S.-led United Nations Command. Pyongyang has been seeking to sign a peace treaty with Washington. Mr. Hill declined to comment on South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young's recent comment that Pyongyang has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. But he reiterated that Washington is unable to recognize such a right because of Pyongyang's past nuclear activity. Mr. Hill said Pyongyang's security does not lie with nuclear weapons. "What will provide security to North Korea is good relations with neighbors and good relations with the United States," he said. by Kang Chan-ho, Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr> Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 8 Xinhua: Russia, DPRK discuss nuclear issue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-18 11:14:07 BEIJING, Aug. 18 -- A Russian envoy said he had been assured that the DPRK could return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as long as the United States doesn't threaten the country. The Russian presidential envoy, Konstantin Pulikovsky, was speaking after a recent series of meetings with DPRK leader, Kim Jong Il. Pulikovsky is President Vladimir Putin's envoy to the Russian Far East. On Wednesday, he said he met Kim several times during a visit this week to mark the sixtieth anniversary of Korea peninsula's liberation from Japanese colonial rule. Pulikovsky said the DPRK leader had told him his country wanted to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and in case of a real threat to the DPRK - his country was ready to defend itself. (Source: CCTV.com) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Rediff: 'US wants to cap our nuclear programme' The Rediff Interview/Former Deputy NSA Satish Chandra August 18, 2005 Former Deputy National Security Adviser Satish Chandra believes the recently concluded nuclear deal between India and the US is dangerous for India's national security, because it exposes India's nuclear weapons programme to external interference. In the second part of the interview to Senior Editor Sheela Bhatt, Chandra explains why separating India's civilian and military nuclear facilities will adversely impact its weapons programme, which needs to be flexible to adapt to changing circumstances. Part I of the interview: 'The US has not fully delivered' Part II of the interview: ''World doesn't know how many bombs India has' But there is also a counter-claim regarding the separation of civilian and military facilities. Yes, I know. I am just saying we have an excellent atomic energy establishment. It is of high repute and has an excellent ethos. It has delivered both on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and on the weapons side. We have a large manpower pool and interchange always take place, creating synergy. We are doing lots of research on both sides. If you are going to segregate people it will affect research. Say if I am engaged in the Bhabha Atomic Energy Centre. Now, if you shift me (after the segregation of civilian and military facilities as India has agreed with the US) to the civilian side, you are limiting my options. The country will have a limited pool of talent for the weapons programme. The segregation of civilian and military facilities is not wise and not practical. Also, we don't know who will head the military structure. Will it be under the Department of Atomic Energy? Maybe we will have to create a huge structure. Will civil servants head a military structure? Indo-US nuclear treaty: A good deal Many countries do have separate civil and military nuclear establishments. Frankly, you can't compare yourself to others, not even to Pakistan. The US is a massive power and they have laboratories doing both military and civilian work. The US can get away with anything. If they ask others to stay away no one will go further. Pakistan's nuclear programme is almost exclusively military. India has agreed to additional protocol, which are so strict and intrusive. India has agreed to dangerous ground rules. During the NDA rule, I was involved somewhat in NSSP (Next Steps in Strategic Partnership)talks. Then, there was no question of agreeing to segregation (of civil and military nuclear facilities). Because that would not have been accepted at all. We were arguing with the Americans that we already had stringent protocols and that we are not proliferators. We have stringent controls because it is in India's interest. But now we have agreed to obligations which were entirely avoidable. We are accepting controls in return for what? Charter of Dependence? It is a question of future vision. What about new plants? Also, once the US changes it laws India will able to talk to France and Russia for nuclear fuel. India's route is not the light breeder reactor. We have fast breeder reactors. And we have ample thorium reserves. I know it will take time to make use of it. But we should have explored the ways to get uranium from other sources, from other countries that are not bound by international laws. India-US: Unequal partners Since the days of Nehru India has said it needs weapons only for minimum deterrent. You can't keep saying that you are a Gandhian country and a believer of peace and also ask for thousands of bombs. We have always been a peaceful country. We are for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. I was posted in Geneva, as permanent representative and I know well that this is the issue we still hold dear to us. If the world agrees to complete elimination of nuclear weapons, India has offered a time bound programme (to do so). My colleagues from the West then at the UN told me that it is a pipe dream. Nuclear weapons are here to stay. That is the reason India went for nuclear testing. It is not minimum deterrent India is talking about. India's doctrine is one of credible minimum deterrence. What is the assessment of minimum deterrent today? It could be X. After ten years it could be two X. India's minimum deterrent will change if assessment of threats to the country changes. What is safe today may not be safe enough tomorrow. You can't finalise your stockpile of weapons today because we don't know what the future holds. Countries who think that they are threatened by India would like to know the numbers. Do you want to reveal those numbers? The moment you separate your facilities you reveal your numbers. Countries like America don't have to bother about it because fissile material is coming out of their ears, but a country like India should be very, very cautious. It is the US game plan to cap India's nuclear weapon programme. What the US Congress is ready to do is not as important for me. What we are committing is important for me. We are committing to a complete inspection regime for our civilian nuclear sector. It will not be possible to produce fissile material for our military establishment. You are agreeing to close that option. They have not even de-hyphenated our relation vis-à-vis Pakistan. Soon after talking to us Ms Rice called Pakistan and briefed them. In short, I am saying that to get fuel the price we are paying is too high. I have a problem with what we are giving in. Give and take is fine but when you give in national security, it is not fine with me. US lawmakers say N-deal will be a tough-sellCritics could ask you to rethink your definition of national security. For me definition of national security is to have a credible minimum deterrent. We are sacrificing a credible minimum deterrent. I am very conservative on matters of national security. I think it is dangerous. But India is so poor. More than 230 million people live below the poverty line. Right. We are a developing country, and that is why we have a 'credible minimum deterrent.' The US is so rich they have a 'massive deterrent.' The Rediff Interviews Copyright © 2005 rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Seattle Times: Pentagon report sounds warning on China's submarine advances Thursday, August 18, 2005 - Page updated at 12:31 AM By Michael Kilian Chicago Tribune WASHINGTON  Little noticed by the public, a just-released Pentagon report to Congress carries a strong warning that China's rapidly expanding and improving submarine fleet poses a mounting military threat to the United States. The end of the Cold War left the United States the world's supreme naval power, and the Pentagon, occupied with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has shifted its priorities away from seaborne threats in recent years. The Pentagon has even diverted components of its anti-submarine warfare arm to other purposes. China, though still well behind the United States in terms of the strength of its submarine fleet, has turned to an undersea vessel that American planners had considered largely obsolete  the diesel-electric attack submarine  to boost its arsenal. And it is equipping its submarines with new technology from Germany and elsewhere to make the craft harder to detect and more lethal than before. Experts predict that China's submarine fleet will substantially outnumber that of the United States within the next 15 years. As the Pentagon report, delivered to Congress last month, says, the new Chinese navy is a force designed mostly to prevent or dissuade the United States from intervening in any future conflict between China and Taiwan. But it also is giving China the capability of menacing Japan and striking U.S. cities with submarine-launched nuclear missiles from far out in the Pacific. "China is in the midst of perhaps the largest military buildup the world has witnessed since the end of the Cold War," Richard Fisher, vice president of Washington's International Assessment and Strategy Center, a national-security think tank, said at a recent hearing of the House Armed Services Committee. China appears to be strengthening all branches of its military  improving training and weaponry for its huge army, increasing its short- and long-range ballistic missiles, adding new aircraft and precision munitions to its air force and developing unmanned aircraft, the Pentagon report said. But submarines have become a high priority. China has about 64 surface warships in its navy and 55 or more attack submarines, designed for use against enemy surface ships and submarines as well as ground targets. These not only include its current Song-class sub, armed with anti-ship cruise missiles that can be launched underwater, but a new Yuan diesel-electric attack sub as well. China also is expected to introduce a nuclear attack submarine this year and has bought four highly capable Russian Kilo-class attack submarines with eight more on order from the Russian military. In contrast, Taiwan has just 27 surface warships and four submarines. The United States has a fleet of 59 attack submarines of all classes but, as experts have noted, has commitments for them all over the world. At current attrition and replacement rates, the experts estimate the U.S. attack fleet will be down to 40 submarines or fewer within the next 15 years, while China expands its fleet by perhaps as many as 35 modern subs. Another great leap forward in Chinese attack-submarine capability has been the introduction of "air-independent propulsion," or AIP, technology to its attack force. Nuclear subs are quieter than diesels, but attack subs running on batteries are quieter still. "When they're on battery, they're incredibly difficult to find ... which complicates the United States' or any opposing navy's ability to operate on the surface," said Lt. Cmdr. Bill Murray, a veteran submarine officer now serving as an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. According to Lyle Goldstein, another Naval War College expert, diesel-electric subs have been able to operate for only two or three days on batteries, having to resurface to recharge them. With AIP, the submarine carries its own air supply, as it might extra fuel, and can recharge its batteries while deep underwater and stay submerged for two or more weeks. Goldstein and Murray contend China acquired much of its AIP technology from Germany. They emphasized that their assessments are their own and not official views. All American submarines are nuclear; the Navy has no diesel-electric attack craft. Last fall, the Swedish government leased the Navy the use of one of its AIP-equipped diesel-electric vessels and crew so American anti-submarine warfare forces could train against the wider-ranging submarine tactics AIP makes possible. Alarm over the Chinese buildup is spreading on Capitol Hill. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., argued that this was no time to cut back the size of the U.S. attack sub fleet or to close the Navy submarine base at Groton, Conn., as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has recommended. "The best anti-submarine weapon is another submarine," Hunter said. The Pentagon report on Chinese military power assessed its submarine buildup as part of a coercive effort to convince Taiwan that "the price of declaring independence is too high" and that naval action against Taiwan might include a blockade or outright attack. Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, China Kick Off Military Exercises From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday August 18, 2005 12:01 PM AP Photo XBH106 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer VLADIVOSTOK, Russia (AP) - Russia and China began unprecedented joint military exercises involving air, sea and land forces Thursday, as commanders from both nations insisted the war games weren't meant to intimidate other countries. The United States isn't sending observers to the exercises, which symbolize the bolstered ties between Russia and China since the end of the Cold War, but the U.S. has said it hopes they don't shake regional stability. ``Our exercises don't threaten any country,'' Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the head of the Russian armed forces general staff, told a news conference at Russia's Pacific Fleet command in the Far East city of Vladivostok. Gen. Liang Guanglie, chief of the general staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, said the exercises were taking place in accord with U.N. principles and would serve to boost the countries' common interests and ``protect peace and stability in our region and the whole world.'' He said they took part in the context of the ``fight against international terrorism, separatism and extremism.'' Liang denied that the moves to strengthen ties between Beijing and Moscow would lead to some kind of military union or the two countries fighting together against any common foe. Instead, the generals said the eight days of exercises were a result of the warming ties between the countries on many levels. China and Russia have drawn closer together since the end of the Cold War after decades of estrangement, united in their opposition to U.S. dominance in world affairs. The exercises, dubbed ``Peace Mission 2005,'' started Thursday with strategic consultations between commanders, and will climax next week with an amphibious and paratroop landing on China's Shandong peninsula in the Yellow Sea. Some 10,000 troops are involved, mostly Chinese and about 1,800 Russians. The new commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Adm. Gary Roughead, said in an interview that the United States was ``very interested'' in the Chinese-Russian exercises. ``We're very interested in the exercise, we're interested in the types of things that they'll do,'' Roughead told The Associated Press on Wednesday in Hawaii. ``We're interested in the complexity and the types of systems that they bring to bear.'' Heralding the start of the drills, the Russian and Chinese commanders laid wreaths at a World War II memorial in Vladivostok before a Russian honor guard, and veterans from both countries also placed flowers there. Experts say the maneuvers are more of a sales pitch to the Chinese of Russian-made arms - including the country's long-range strategic bombers. Analysts have noted the involvement of Russia's Tu-95 strategic bombers and Tu-22M long-range bombers in the exercises - warplanes that can carry conventional or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and are not usually part of peacekeeping operations. The aircraft are expected to top China's shopping list both to deter U.S. assistance to Taiwan in the event of a conflict and project Chinese strength across the region. Baluyevsky on Thursday praised Russian weapons as reliable and easy to repair. But both countries also are looking to prove their military might. The U.S. Defense Department said in a report last month that China's military was increasingly seeking to modernize and could become a threat to American and other forces in the Asia-Pacific region as it looked to spread its influence. The Russian military is also eager to show it can still flex its muscles despite much-publicized woes. Its weaknesses were highlighted again earlier this month when the country was forced to call for outside help to rescue seven men stranded in a mini-submarine off its Pacific coast in operations that involved the Vladivostok-based Pacific Fleet. Russia and China are the dominant countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a grouping that includes four former Soviet republics of Central Asia and which this year took on Iran, India and Pakistan as observers. At a summit in July, the group called on Washington to set a date for the withdrawal of its forces from Central Asia, where they have been deployed since late 2001 to help support operations in neighboring Afghanistan. Representatives from the organization's countries have been invited to watch the exercises. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 12 Review: Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present Issue 10 - August, 2005 By: Metta Spencer Posted on: 8/18/2005 Volume Three of The Struggle Against the Bomb, Lawrence S. Wittner, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2003 Metta Spencer (reviewer) Wittner's three-volume history is masterful -- by far the most impressive account of the world disarmament movement yet published . You shouldn't expect to read it straight through without a break from covers to covers to covers (each volume extends about 600 pages) but do tackle it gradually. If you choose only one of the three volumes, pick this final one, which, by bringing us nearly up-to-date on the Bush administration's policies, revives waning adrenaline output. Long-time activists may recognize the story as a partial biography of their own lives, recounting events, people, and policies they had almost forgotten. (For example, does the term 'walk in the woods' sound vaguely familiar?) The book's hortatory rhetoric is sparse, for Wittner concentrates on describing with meticulous precision the events of the global movement. (I did not spot a single error or exaggeration.) Yet the impeccable display of this record refutes an alternative, but conventionally accepted, argument. We have heard -- possibly even believed -- the triumphalist account advanced by Western militarists: that the Reagan administration won the nuclear arms race by building newer and ever-costlier weapons systems until at last "Gorbachev blinked." But Wittner shows that the historical sequence was otherwise. He attributes the dramatic easing of the arms race in the later 1980s, not to the staying power of Western hawks, but primarily to the powerful, world-wide nuclear disarmament campaign that forced hawks to change course. And indeed, these effects were already visible in the United States before Gorbachev came to power. Reagan took office in 1981 promising "strategic superiority," speaking lightly of fighting a nuclear war, and inveighing against "appeasement." As Wittner reminds us, the hawks of the late 1970s and early 1980s (notably the Committee on the Present Danger) believed that the Soviets could be stopped only be a display of military "strength." Consequently, during their sabre-rattling heyday, Soviet-American relations deteriorated so sharply that Yuri Andropov vowed to match the American expansion at whatever cost. When in 1983 NATO prepared to hold European war games ("Able Archer"), the alarmed Soviet leaders expected that "exercise" to culminate in an actual nuclear attack. Therefore, they placed their own nuclear forces on alert in preparation for action. (During those days only the courage of a Soviet officer, Stanislav Petrov, prevented a mistaken retaliatory launch, as described in Peace Magazine in April 2001.) That same year, when the new U.S. missiles began to be deployed in Europe, the Soviets also broke off arms control negotiations and resumed deployment of their own SS20s and SS-23 nuclear missiles. Instead of "winning" such contests by inducing the Soviets to back down, each of Reagan's hard-line efforts to intimidate backfired, strengthening the militarists in the Kremlin. But Reagan's arms build-up simultaneously alarmed vast numbers of Westerners who, unlike citizens of the Communist bloc, were able to organize public protests against government policies. Reagan and Congress were alike rattled by these demonstrations and began to recognize that the arms race was dangerously unpopular with voters. If anyone "blinked," it was Reagan. His wife Nancy was shocked by the belligerence of Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who proposed that Reagan bomb Cuba and who saw nuclear weapons as "an expression of the strength of the nation possessing them." At first Reagan encouraged the Pentagon's plan to modernize all US strategic forces, but by late 1981 he began reversing some tough policies and stating that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." He observed the terms of the SALT II treaty, to which he had previously objected and which was unratified. In response partly to the mounting concerns of European allies, he called for a "zero option" -- the removal of all Soviet intermediate range nuclear weapons from Europe and Asia in exchange for a US promise not to deploy the cruise and Pershing missiles. This was an asymmetrical proposal that would have required deeper cuts of the Soviets than of NATO. Insiders said that the proposal was put forward only because the Soviets would reject it, allowing the American deployment to proceed with apparent justification, despite the objections of the growing European peace movement. Still, in 1984 Reagan publicly called for a nuclear-free world and not until March 1985 did he find a Soviet leader who would respond to his tentative relenting in the competition for strategic superiority. Soon after taking office, Mikhail Gorbachev showed his enthusiasm for "new thinking," in terms of both democratization and peace. Indeed, his remarkably positive attitude toward the international peace movement contrasted so sharply with Reagan's obvious disdain and hawkish rhetoric that activists probably overestimated the gap between their respective policies. Certainly, at the time one could hardly regard Reagan as responsive toward disarmament movement demands, since he did not disguise his dislike of us, whereas Gorbachev met with hordes of Western peaceniks, always responding warmly to their suggestions. Only a historian, viewing the timeline of actual performances during this period, would notice how frequently Reagan had accepted (albeit grudgingly) the movement's demands after they had gained popularity and political clout. Those Soviet officials such as Aleksandr Yakovlev and Georgi Arbatov who became influential Gorbachev advisers confirm Wittner's account. Indeed, Anatoly Dobrinin stated that if Reagan "had not abandoned his hostile stance toward the Soviet Union, Gorbachev would not have been able to launch his reforms and his 'new thinking,'" but would have "been forced to continue the conservative foreign and domestic policies of his predecessors." Wittner is careful to point out that the Communist-sponsored World Peace Council enjoyed little credibility, either among Western peace organizations or even in the Soviet Union itself. And the courageous independent activists in the socialist bloc never gained a hearing in the Kremlin. Indeed, they continued to be sent to prison camps until glasnost was in full bloom. It was foreigners whose opinion Gorbachev sought and respected. Even at the end, his feelings toward the leading independent spokesman Andrei Sakharov were decidedly mixed, though Wittner does not make much of this fact. Nevertheless, the international peace movement, which had influence in East and West alike, supported their independent counterparts in the East. Wittner's makes an air-tight argument for his main point -- that the peace movement was the causal force behind the dramatic nuclear arms control agreements of the late 1980s. Reagan was pushed involuntarily toward disarmament by the same international peace groups to whom Gorbachev turned voluntarily and warmly. There is no other plausible way of explaining Reagan's policy changes. Gorbachev's intentions may, however, have been mixed: Because Wittner did not analyze economic factors, he did not have to mention all the constraints that influenced Gorbachev's policies. Without a doubt, Gorbachev was an authentic dove, but he also needed to disarm for practical reasons. Only after taking office did he discover that his country was bankrupt. Probably financial considerations probably influenced his military policies more than Wittner acknowledged. This is not incompatible with his morally principled readiness to disarm. In any case, the worst of the weaponry was dismantled on both sides, and for a time there were bright prospects for a truly denuclearized future world. Unfortunately, the movement quickly began to disintegrate from false confidence, leaving the way open for a new generation of American hawks to gain power. Now the George W. Bush administration has cancelled existing treaties and launched another round of nuclear development -- somehow without arousing a new global outcry. There is a lesson to be drawn from this: the struggle against the bomb may never be finished. Only eternal vigilance and unceasing political pressure will preserve the world from the ambitions of nuclear weapons proponents. + Reviewed by Metta Spencer, a retired sociology professor and editor of Peace. + http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v20n3p27.htm ©2005 PeaceJournalism.com, registered in New Jersey. All Rights Reserved. Chief Editor: Kamala Sarup ***************************************************************** 13 UK: News & Star: Time to choose: nuclear energy or wind power? Published on 18/08/2005 [Jill Perry: Wind farms have major environmental benefits] THERE is now little doubt that climate change is happening as a result of man’s activities – mainly the burning of fossil fuels. If we fail to prevent this, the impact will be felt locally as well as nationally and internationally. We have to move to cleaner forms of energy. So why wind and not nuclear? According to all the opinion polls nuclear is much more unpopular than wind energy. The process of consultation into the principle, finding sites, building and licensing reactors is long drawn out and would take at least 10 years, and maybe much longer. Nuclear has its own problems and is not sustainable. It is expensive (1p to 3p a unit more expensive than wind), dirty (making regular radioactive discharges – gas to the air and liquid to the sea), and produces solid waste which is proving expensive and difficult to dispose of and will place a huge financial and environmental burden on many generations to come. Furthermore it is not carbon free: the mining, transportation and processing of the ore for fuel, the transportation of the fuel to reactors, the construction of various plants which use considerable amounts of concrete, the transport and processing of used fuel and decommissioning of the plant all produce carbon dioxide. Wind farms have major environmental benefits. A single 3MW wind turbine can displace 6,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, providing clean energy for 1,650 houses. It repays the amount of energy used in production and erection within six months. Often the wildlife habitat of the site is improved by developers through a land management plan as part of the proposal. The turbines themselves are not harmful to wildlife. Wind farms bring economic benefits. Because of wind farms in the North West, 51 engineering firms in Cumbria have developed the knowledge, skills and experience to serve the wind industry. Wind farming gives extra income to farmers and animals can graze right up to the bottom of the turbines without causing damage. However, wind energy alone will not solve the problem of rising carbon dioxide emissions. Energy efficiency measures, renewable transport fuels (biodiesel is already breaking into the market to replace diesel) and renewable sources of heat will be necessary too, as will other renewable forms of electricity generation, as they become cost effective. For the moment wind energy is a vital way to take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without causing other harmful effects. ***************************************************************** 14 NME: The Cure help the release of jailed Belarusian scientist - NME.COM Published: 18-08-2005-10-15 The Cure have helped the release of a jailed Belarusian scientist following a campaign by AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Professor Yury Bandazhevsky was conditionally released from prison on August 5 after serving four years of an eight-year sentence. Bandazhevsky’s case had been taken up by Amnesty International and other human rights organisations as well as by . Singer Robert Smith said: “The release of Professor Yury Bandazhevsky is welcome news, and another great example of how we can all make a difference if we try - well done Amnesty: the fight goes on.” According to Amnesty International, Bandazhevsky was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment after being convicted of taking bribes from students seeking admission to the Gomel Medical Institute, where he was a rector. The human rights organisation adopted him as a Prisoner of Conscience, believing that he was convicted on trumped up charges because of his open criticism of the authorities’ response to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Amnesty International Media Director Mike Blakemore said: “We’re delighted that Professor Bandazhevsky has finally been freed. It’s a testament to the dedication of individual Amnesty members across the world who have campaigned tirelessly for justice in this case.” He added: “We would also like to thank and their fans who attended the USA Curiosa Festival Tour last summer, for supporting this case by signing our petition. They really have made a difference in helping to secure Yury’s freedom.” ***************************************************************** 15 [NukeNet] Earthquake in Tohoku Japan Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:56:06 -0700 WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=no version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com caught runtime exception: No such file or directory X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Tohoku Earthquake The magnitude 7.2 earthquake that hit the Tohoku Region (1) of Japan on Tuesday 16 August caused the 3 nuclear reactors at Tohoku Electric's Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant to scram automatically. The maximum quake was measured at 251.2 gals (2) on the second floor basement of the number 2 reactor. This exceeded the design basis of 250 gals. The Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency said that it may in fact be the first time the earthquake design basis for a nuclear reactor has been exceeded in Japan. Tohoku Electric immediately dismissed the significance of this saying the reactors can withstand a quake of 375 gals. The reactors are designed to scram if the quake exceeds 200 gals horizontally, or 100 gals vertically. All three Onagawa reactors exceeded this limit. Operations at the three Onagawa reactors will be suspended for some time while the effects of the earthquake on the reactors are assessed. Meanwhile, Tokyo Electric Power Company has confirmed that water leaked from the spent fuel pools at the No. 2 and No. 6 reactors of the Fukushima I plant. It said that the water did not leak outside the facilities. News items about the earthquake are listed on the following page of CNIC's English web site: http://cnic.jp/english/news/mediaetc/index.html An article about the Niigata earthquake last year can be found at the following page: http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit103/nit103articles/ earthquake2Nov04.html 1. The Tohoku Region is in the north east of Honshu, the largest island in Japan. 2. Gal is a measure of acceleration. 1 gal = 0.01 m/s2. Philip White International Liaison Officer Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Phone: 81-3-5330-9520 Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ cnic@nifty.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 16 [NukeNet] Nuclear PR campaign Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:59:16 -0700 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com caught runtime exception: No such file or directory X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) THE WEEKLY SPIN, August 17, 2005 sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy http://www.prwatch.org SPINNING ATOMS INTO GOLD http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=240184&site=3 Despite securing up to $13 billion in federal subsidies in the recently passed energy bill, according to estimates by Public Citizen, the nuclear industry continues its PR offensive. The major industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is "soliciting help from PR agencies to assist in removing all major legislative and regulatory impediments to a nuclear renaissance," reports PR Week. The major goal of the 14 month, $8 million campaign is "to bolster public support for the development of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain" in Nevada. The campaign will include outreach to "sympathetic groups, including selected members of the academic, public health, and environmental communities." Some eight PR firms, including Ogilvy, Burson-Marsteller and Dittus Communications, are interested in working on the campaign. NEI will select a firm by August 15. SOURCE: PR Week (sub. req'd.), August 1, 2005 For more information or to comment on this story, visit: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3902 _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 17 AU ABC: NT Opposition seeks nuclear power debate Friday, 19 August 2005. 08:00 (AEST)Friday, 19 August 2005. The Northern Territory Opposition says it is vital to have a serious and considered debate about the use of nuclear power in Australia. Opposition treasury spokesman Terry Mills says it is a difficult subject and he is not suggesting that nuclear power stations should be built in the Territory. Mr Mills says former New South Wales premier Bob Carr and even singer turned MP Peter Garrett have called for a debate. He says they have recognised that Australia cannot rely on fossil fuels forever. "Where will we be in 10, 15, 20 years time?" he said. "There is an issue that we don't even talk about in this community and that is nuclear energy. "We need to talk about it so at least we can work out how we should respond to it. I'd much prefer to enter healthy debate than to just ignore it and turn away from it because we're afraid even to talk about it." ***************************************************************** 18 Bangkok Post: The 'non-existent' nuclear option Friday 19 August 2005 - BANGKOKPOST.COM ANALYSIS / THAILAND'S ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Given the bitter experience with opponents, there is unlikely to be any vocal supporter for nuclear energy plants in Thailand _ at least for many, many years to come By BOONSONG KOSITCHOTETHANA Theoretically speaking, anyone involved in Thailand's power industry could not agree more with energy policy experts Piyasvasti Amranand and Metta Banturngsuk that the country should seriously start re-looking at nuclear power as an alternative source of energy in the future. But energy specialists and analysts see the issue, which was resurrected for public attention recently after a decade of dormancy, is unlikely to spark a dramatic public debate from both supporters and opponents of nuclear power, as it did in the 1980s and 1990s. The pros and cons of the nuclear option for Thailand is a tired subject, as both camps seem to be in consensus that the chance of seeing one built and operational in this country _ at least over the next two decades _ is very remote, if not outright impossible. Concerns about safety and lingering worries caused by the Three Mile Island crisis in the US in 1979 and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, apparently continue to haunt the Thai public's mind at large. That is in sharp contrast to other parts of the world, including the US, where such a negative impression appears to have slowly receded, replaced by increasing confidence _ after decades of nuclear utilities operating without causing a major public health hazard. First and foremost, getting the Thai public to accept nuclear power in the next several years is not foreseeable and is an extremely difficult one, despite all its merits, said Tienchai Chongpeerapien, an independent energy analyst who helps draw up Thailand's energy policy. ''This is the project hated by conservationists, NGOs and petroleum companies, who would spare no thought to opposing it. I simply don't see how the nuclear power plant would come to light in many, many years to come,'' agreed Preecha Chungwatana, ex-governor of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, now Egat Plc. ''It's impossible to see one [nuclear power station] built on Thai soil, at least in my life-time,'' added Sarath Ratanawadee, the 40-something president of Gulf Electric Ltd, one of Thailand's major merchant power producers. ''If you can't get a much less complicated power project like a coal-fired plant up and running here in Thailand, you can simply forget about the nuclear plant here,'' said Mr Sarath, whose firm was forced to drop the 700MW coal power scheme in Prachuab Khiri Khan after vigorous protests from villagers and environmentalists over the past 7-8 years. The company has since relocated its project to Saraburi, whose generating capacity has been doubled to 1,400MW, and switched to natural gas. Given the bitter experience with opponents, especially the well-orchestrated anti-nuclear movement enjoying support from international NGOs, there is unlikely to be any vocal supporter of nuclear power plants _ not ministers, bureaucrats, academics or the private sector _ who would really turn this excellent form of energy to meet the country's power needs, according said Dr Tienchai, who is also president of the Business & Economic Research Associates Co. No political will is seen to be forthcoming from the government, at least not from the present populist administration, to pave the way for a nuclear power project to become a reality. ''It is definitely unpopular and too sensitive to bring the issue up,'' noted one energy analyst. Indeed, the nuclear power option disappeared from the national power development master plan in early 1990s in light of the strong opposition and as a result of the public's ''not in my backyard'' concerns, though utility authorities have quietly been looking at the subject from a distance. However, the reform of electricity supply industry has now left the door open for commercial power producers to resort to nuclear power _ if they ever pass the public hearing process and the environmental impact assessment study which, at present, are essential steps for launching any industrial project. ''No private sector in their right mind will propose the [nuclear] project in the knowledge that it will never take off. They would rather go into easier options like natural gas-fired power, '' an energy analyst said. Ignoring the nuclear option does not serve the best interests of Thailand. The kingdom's excessive dependence on natural gas for power generation, now accounting for some 75% of all the 20,000MW-plus electrical output, is bad for security of fuel supplies, both for now and the future, energy experts warn. ''Putting all the eggs in one basket is risky,'' said Dr Tienchai. Nor is it wise for Thailand not to engage coal in the total energy mix because of the stereotype perception that coal-fired power plants would blanket the countryside with haze and choking emissions that may cause premature deaths. Using advanced clean-coal technology, the new generation of coal-fired power plants can be as environmentally friendly as other fossil-fuel based generators, said Mr Preecha, who spent most of his lifetime working for Egat before retiring several years ago. Aside from being the only greenhouse gas emitting a power source and a steady yet secure source of electricity, nuclear energy has become more competitive in terms of costs, as well as being safer. According to Dr Tienchai, a front-end investment for a nuclear power plant now ranges from US$1-1.2 million per megawatt (MW), compared to $600,000/MW for the gas-fired combined cycle plant, the most popular type of power stations in Thailand. But the fuel cost of nuclear is much lower than natural gas. In some countries like Japan, the cost of electricity generated from nuclear power is more than 20% lower than that derived from natural gas (imported in the form of liquefied natural gas, LNG). From the economic perspective, Thailand can afford a nuclear power plant, especially if one merchant power producer adheres to the ''least cost'' guideline set by the Energy Ministry in determining whether one power generation plant project should be awarded a licence, Dr Tienchai said. To gain public acceptance, it is essential that the government and parties concerned embark on a public information and education process so that people understand the benefits which have been overshadowed by the safety and environmental concerns, and the fact that sooner or later they have to embrace atomic energy, energy experts said. If everything falls into place, a nuclear power plant can be up and running in 12-15 years, noted Mr Preecha, an atomic energy engineer by training. An ideal size to start off is a 1,000MW facility. In parallel, there is a need for Thailand to start rebuilding atomic energy specialists as the existing few ones at Egat Plc have either retired or are approaching their retirement age. Globally, nuclear power is one on the rise, prompted by high fossil-fuel prices and the requirement for a clean environment and reliable source of electricity. Latest figures compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show there are 441 nuclear power units (including one in Iran) with a combined generating capacity of 368,145MW, in operation in 31 countries, and 24 more with a total output of 19,672MW are under construction. There are 39 plants with 41,472MW capacity being ''planned'' globally and 74 with 58,145MW are being ''initiated''. The fast-growing electricity demand in rapidly developing countries in Asia has led to more new nuclear power plants being built and planned than in other continents. Asia has become the growth area for the global nuclear industry. China, the emerging Asian superpower, is laying plans to build as many as 100 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. India, too, is building eight units with 3,600MW capacity. On the other hand, there were 111 plants with a combined capacity of 35,824MW that were shut down due to retirement and other reasons. © Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2005 ***************************************************************** 19 RIA Novosti: Rosenergoatom against privatizing nuclear power industry 18/ 08/ 2005 MOSCOW, August 18 (RIA Novosti) - There is no need to privatize Russia's nuclear power industry, Stanislav Antipov, who heads Rosenergoatom, Russia's electric and thermal energy generating concern, told the daily newspaper Vedomosti Thursday. Antipov, the general director of the holding, which comprises all 10 nuclear power plants in Russia, is preparing the company for corporatization. Antipov said that when Rosenergoatom acquires a legal status more adapted to market economy, it would be able to borrow the tens of billions of rubles necessary to replace Russia's aging nuclear reactors. "Without corporatization, the nuclear power industry will not be able to work efficiently in market economy conditions," he said, adding that large investments were necessary to build new power units instead of old ones. "On average, Russian nuclear power units 60% worn-out," he said, adding that this is fraught with a serious energy crisis since the plants bear the brunt of the country's power grid. Antipov said Rosenergoatom's corporatization would resolve the "deadlock" situation and help the industry get big banking loans for upgrading. Banks always demand a pledge or state guarantees, but a state enterprise is not allowed to pawn its property and government guarantees are not easy to receive. Optimistic assessments have corporatization starting next year, Antipov said. The new company's stock will be owned by the state, but part of its property could be given as a pledge to creditors. "Of course, we are not talking about nuclear fuel or other radioactive materials that by law can be owned exclusively by the state," Antipov said. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 20 Xinhua: India decides to join as full member at ITER project www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-18 18:19:21 NEW DELHI, Aug. 18 (Xinhuanet) - The Indian government said on Thursday that it has decided to join the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project as a full member and letters expressing its interest have been sent to all ITER partners. This was stated on Thursday by Minister attached to the Indian Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Prithviraj Chavan. "The financial implication on India's part is presently estimated at 25 billion rupees over a period of 10 years which will be in the form of contribution such as equipment and services of personnel," Chavan said in the Parliament. Chavan also said that India and Europe have signed an agreement of cooperation for nuclear research in 1991, and subsequently a protocol was signed in 1996, whereby, India joined in the construction and utilization of the largest particle accelerator in the world-large hadron collider. This, the Minister said, has enabled scientists and engineers from various national laboratories and universities to participate in frontline research in physics. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: In the Matter of Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Establishment FR Doc E5-4506 [Federal Register: August 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 159)] [Notices] [Page 48607] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18au05-79] of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Nuclear Management Company, LLC (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant) This proceeding concerns a July 9, 2005 request for hearing submitted by petitioner North American Water Office, in response to a May 5, 2005 notice of opportunity for hearing, 70 FR 25,117 (May 12, 2005), regarding the March 16, 2005 application of Nuclear Management Company, LLC, (NMC) for renewal of the operating license for its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. In its application, NMC requests that the operating license for its Monticello facility be extended for an additional twenty years beyond the period specified in the current license, which expires on September 8, 2010. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Lawrence G. McDade, Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of August 2005. G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E5-4506 Filed 8-17-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 Deccan Herald: Work on setting up of nine nuke plants in full swing : Chavan New Delhi, PTI: Work on setting up of nine nuclear power plants at the total cost of Rs 29,542 crore is going on in full swing, Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday. Stating this in a wriiten reply, Minister of state in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan said while three reactors are being set up in Tamil Nadu with the total capacity of 2500 MWe, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka are setting up two reactors each with the capacity in MWe 1080, 440 and 440, respectively. TAPP Unit-4 (540 MWe) in Maharashtra has been connected to grid on fourth June, 2005 and expected to commence commercial operation in August, 2005, he said. To another question, Chavan said total power generation from different nuclear power plants in the country during 2004-05 was about 16,500 MUs. He said 14 reactors with installed capacity of 2770 MWe have generated 17010 Million Units in 2004-05. The generation of power in 2005-06 is expected to be around 17000 million units. Chavan said the present installed capacity of 2770 MWe is expected to reach 7280 MWe by March 2011 with the progressive completion of projects under construction. More projects are also planned so as to reach the capacity of 20,000 MWe by the year 2020. Copyright 2005, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., 75, M.G. Road, Post Box No 5331, Bangalore - 560001 Tel: +91 (80) 25880000 Fax No. +91 (80) 25880523 ***************************************************************** 23 The Australian: Nuclear power plays [August 19, 2005] Beverley uranium mine Amanda Hodge IT may not be the answer to world peace but Geoff Prosser believes Australian uranium has the potential to solve some pressing dilemmas. The federal Liberal backbencher argues that with more than 40 per cent of the world's total uranium in our backyard, Australia could fuel nuclear power for millions of the world's poor, restrain global warming greenhouse emissions and in the process add hundreds of millions to our own trade earnings. Factor in a trebling of the world uranium spot price in recent years to $US30 ($39) a pound, a result of the depletion of former Russian nuclear weapons-grade uranium that has flooded the market for the past decade, and there has never been a better time for Australian mining to save the world. All the hype in Kalgoorlie last week at the Diggers and Dealers, an annual conference for the mining industry, was about the uranium boom and how mining companies and banks can capitalise on the growing world need for energy and curb greenhouse-gas emissions by building nuclear power stations. As part of an ongoing investigation into expanding Australia's export volumes and the global demand for Australia's uranium, a House of Representatives inquiry will hold a public hearing in Melbourne today, chaired by Prosser. The travelling road show, backed by federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, will go to Olympic Dam, Perth, Darwin and Sydney in coming months. Prosser sees no downside in exploiting a high-value, low-cost resource he says the world is screaming for. "The US are having another look at uranium," the West Australian MP says. "New plants are going into China and Europe and most countries are coming to the view now that if they wish to meet their [greenhouse] emissions targets and reduce global warming, about the only way they can do that is with nuclear power. There's an opportunity to double exports from $500 million to $1 billion." Macfarlane is committed to the expansion of uranium mining and exports in the next few years, saying Australia's uranium exports would most likely increase from 10,000 tonnes to 30,000 tonnes a year by 2010. This month the federal Government wrested control of mining approvals from the Northern Territory Government and announced the top end was open for uranium business. Macfarlane says about a dozen companies are currently exploring for uranium in the resource-rich territory, home to $12billion worth of known uranium deposits. There's another $6 billion worth in WA. But expanding Australia's uranium mining industry is not so simple. The federal Government can hand out NT mining permits, but the Territory Government has a wealth of means -- environmental, industrial, and occupational health and safety approvals -- with which to frustrate a new operation. Queensland and WA both oppose mining under state legislation, despite holding large deposits. In NSW, even exploration is banned. Unlike the NT, the commonwealth has no power to force the hand of state governments opposed to uranium mining. Even if it did find a way, it would take extraordinary political grit to override state sovereignty. South Australia's position is more complex. It went to great lengths to avoid hosting the commonwealth's 10,000 tonne low radioactive waste dump. Yet it supports trebling uranium output from BHP Billiton's massive Olympic Dam, which will leave behind millions of tonnes of radioactive tailings. Prosser hopes his travelling inquiry will loosen state intransigence. But the Australian public could be an equally tough sell. Public opposition to uranium mining traditionally focused on the spent fuel from nuclear power stations that remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years and the potential for uranium to fall into malevolent hands. The anti-nuclear agenda has abated but global terrorism is stirring greater activism. Gavin Mudd, a Monash University environmental engineering academic who studies the environmental impact of radioactive tailings, will address Prosser's parliamentary inquiry today. "Olympic Dam already has 70 million tonnes of radioactive tailings at the surface and if they go for full production, will leave another four billion tonnes," Mudd says. All three of Australia's uranium mines -- Olympic Dam, SA's second uranium mine Beverley and the Ranger mine in the NT -- have been beset with leaks and spills in recent years. In 2003, a Senate inquiry into uranium reported a pattern of underperformance and non-compliance of Australian uranium mines. Mudd also believes that selling uranium to China to fuel nuclear power has potential consequences for global security. Australia only sells to countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and who have entered a bilateral agreement restricting uranium use to non-military purposes. Australia and China have begun negotiating such a bilateral. But Mudd says the agreement is worthless if Australian sales free China to use its own uranium reserves to build nuclear weapons. "They can buy uranium in for commercial power reactors and use their internal uranium for weapons programs," Mudd says. "If we sell uranium to China we directly facilitate the expansion of their weapons program." The US State Department is reportedly nervous about a potential deal, following comments by China's Major-General Zhu Chenghu who said China would destroy "hundreds" of US cities with nuclear weapons if war broke out over Taiwan. The head of Australia's Uranium Information Centre, Ian Hore-Lacy, points to China's record of selling reactors to Pakistan and a uranium enrichment plant to Iran. Hore-Lacy does not see this as an impediment to a uranium deal with the world's fastest growing economy, but warns there will be no great leap in uranium demand. "It's not as though you're going to have twice as many people buying twice as much uranium. There's 440 nuclear reactors in the world (requiring 68,000 tonnes of uranium a year). Building eight new ones in China by 2010 won't create a huge spike. Their annual uranium demand will be about 8000 tonnes -- about 80 per cent of what we produce now." The UIC's research shows world demand is rising. Roughly the same number of nuclear plants are being decommissioned as are scheduled to come online, but the new plants are bigger. While stockpiled uranium accounts for up to 40 per cent of the world market, the mining industry's share is forecast to rise to 70 per cent in coming years. BHP Billiton hopes to capitalise on this growth by trebling production of uranium from its massive Olympic Dam in northern SA, adding an additional 10,000 tonnes by 2010. Olympic Dam is the world's largest single uranium deposit with 1.5 million tonnes or 38 per cent of known reserves. Australia's other two uranium mines have limited capacity to exploit China's potential. The Rio Tinto-owned Ranger mine in the NT, with a proven reserve of 31,000 tonnes, is nearing the end of its life and SA's second uranium mine Beverley, owned by Heathgate Resources, is a relatively small producer of about 1000 tonnes a year. Australia has more than 15 other known uranium deposits but the best is also the most controversial -- the Koongarra deposit in Kakadu National Park, 3km from the Aboriginal cultural and tourist lure Nourlangie Rock. French nuclear power company Cogema is lobbying the traditional owners about mining the 14,000 tonne deposit. Koongarra, as with ERA's Jabiluka tenement in Kakadu before it, has the potential to mobilise loud public opposition. Australian Conservation Foundation chief Don Henry believes the Government is jumping into a uranium build-up without considering the consequences. With Iran and North Korea openly flouting the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the threat of terrorists using nuclear material to make dirty bombs, "is this really the sort of world we want to be shovelling more uranium into?" Henry asks. "We need a serious debate, not just rushing to the cash register, but realising it comes at a real cost to some of our most precious landscapes." Hore-Lacy warns any new world market demand is not just Australia's for the taking. There will be plenty of competition for new markets such as China and India. Canada produces almost a third of all mined uranium, compared with Australia's 22 per cent, and is well entrenched as a reliable supplier. Namibia, South Africa, Nigeria and Kazakhstan are also established producers. With reliability of supply the most important factor in long-term contracts, Macfarlane believes our best hope of securing new deals is to dispel the image of Australia as anti-uranium, and therefore unreliable, before long-term contracts come up for renewal. He will be hoping that the uranium road show will be the first step along that path. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: NRC to Hold Two Public Meetings on Proposed National Source Tracking System News Release - 2005-11 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-112 August 17, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold public meetings Aug. 29 in Rockville, Md., and Sept. 20 in Houston, Texas, to discuss its proposed national tracking system for certain radioactive materials used for academic, medical and industrial purposes. As announced in the Federal Register on July 28, the NRC is considering amending its regulations to require licensees to report information on the manufacture, transfer, receipt or disposal of certain radioactive materials and sources of interest to the automated tracking system. The sources are considered to be sealed sources because they are encased in a capsule designed to prevent leakage or escape of the material. The NRC worked extensively with other agencies and the international community to reach agreement on which radioactive sources should be tracked. They include, but are not limited to, certain amounts of Cobalt-60, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Iridium-192 and Americium-241. Licensees would have to report their initial inventory of these sources and annually verify and reconcile the information in the system with the licensees actual inventory. In addition, the proposed rule would require manufacturers to assign a unique serial number to each nationally tracked source. The proposed rule is available on the NRCs rulemaking website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. The Aug. 29 meeting will be held in the NRC auditorium, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The Sept. 20 meeting will be at the offices of the Texas Department of State Health Services, Elias Ramirez State Office Building, 5425 Polk Street, Rooms 4B-4E, Houston, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The agenda for both meetings calls for a 30-minute welcome, introduction and NRC staff presentation on the rule requirements, with the remainder of the time available for public comments. The time available per commenter may be limited to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Those planning to attend are requested to notify Ikeda King, telephone 301-415-7278, e-mail ijk@nrc.govto pre-register. On-site registration at the meetings will also be available. Written comments on the proposed rule are also invited and should be submitted by Oct. 11. They may be mailed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff; sent by e-mail to SECY@nrc.govor submitted via the NRCs rulemaking web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Last revised Wednesday, August 17, 2005 ***************************************************************** 25 The Great DU Awakening Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:57:35 -0500 (CDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): Free Americans Proclaiming Total Emancipation and Working Towards Democracy. From: David West Date: August 18, 2005 10:42:13 AM GMT+07:00 Subject: Another way to end the Bush warfaring? E Bryant Holman wrote: DU - The Ticking Nuke In Bush's White House War Room By Dave Lindorff http://www.rense.com/general67/DUtestingforreturning.htm 8-16-5 Quietly, and under the radar for now, a movement is growing across the country that could blow up White House war planning and finish off the U.S. adventure in Iraq. That movement is state-by-state legislation to provide for testing of returning National Guard troops for signs of contamination by depleted uranium. Kicked off in Connecticut by a feisty Democratic state representative from New Haven named Patricia Dillon, a woman who was trained in epidemiology at Yale--her bill passed the state legislature in July unanimously, and goes into effect this October--about the time many Connecticut Guard troops will finally be coming home from Iraq. The measure has copycats hard at work in some 14-20 other states. Louisiana has already passed a similar law. The military has been insisting that the 3000 tons of DU munitions it has blown up in Iraq in this war so far (and the 1000 tons more it has exploded and fired off in Afghanistan) are safe for troops and for civilians, though there is no real data to prove this because the Pentagon has vigorously resisted testing returning troops (only 270 so far, and using a far-from-state-of-the-art test) and the State Department and Pentagon have barred UN or other outside testers from looking into DU contamination in Iraq. The official line--really an obfuscation--is that Uranium is only minimally radioactive. While this is true, it is chemically toxic in minute trace amounts, because Uranium ions are actually attracted to bond with DNA, where they can wreak havoc with cells (especially the cells of developing fetuses). Meanwhile, an early small test sample of nine returned NY State National Guard soldiers, financed by the NY Daily News, found four, or nearly half the sample, to be clearly DU contaminated, with the others showing obvious symptoms (headaches, renal and neurological problems, etc.). If even a much smaller proportion than 44% of the tens of thousands of U.S. Guard troops who get tested in Connecticut, Louisiana and other states prove to be contaminated with uranium from U.S. weapons, more states are bound to establish similar testing laws. Beyond that, reservists and active duty troops and veterans, all already anxious about the issue, are certain to start demanding the sophisticated tests. Meanwhile, if DU tests start showing serious contamination of U.S. troops, how are Iraqis going to react? Already Iraqis are troubled by a dramatic (seven-fold) rise in childhood cancers and birth defects, particularly in the south. Unlike in the first Gulf War, when all 300 tons of DU used was fired off in the Kuwaiti and Iraqi desert, this time nearly 10 times as much DU has largely been exploded and burned in urban fighting, putting the dust right in the path of millions of civilians. This bomb is ticking... =============================================================================== ***************************************************************** 26 Irradiating Shellfish Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:38:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com PUBLIC CITIZEN PRESS RELEASE Aug. 16, 2005 Approval of Irradiated Oysters Is a Step in the Wrong Direction Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director of Public Citizen's Food Program The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision today to permit the use of irradiation on molluscan shellfish, such as oysters, clams and mussels, is misguided. Despite years of consumer resistance to eating irradiated food, the government continues to forge a path down which very few consumers are willing to tread. By all any measure, irradiation has been a failure. Grocery stores rarely carry irradiated meat because it doesn't sell. The National School Lunch Program has yet to order a single pound of irradiated ground beef despite the federal government's 2003 approval of such purchases for the program. Several food irradiation facilities have closed their doors in the past two years due to lack of business. The FDA is promoting irradiation despite the fact that questions about long-term health impacts of irradiation remain unanswered and despite the fact that alternatives exist. On Aug. 8, FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford, speaking to the International Congress on Meat Science and Technology, said that the risk of food-borne illnesses in shellfish can be substantially reduced by cutting the time from harvest to refrigeration, freezing, and using high pressure or mild heating. He stated that "85-90 percent of Vibrio illnesses in the Gulf Coast states could be eliminated if the product were iced within four hours or refrigerated within one hour of harvest." On Aug. 13, the agency conducted a public hearing in Alabama to present findings from a risk analysis for Vibrio parahaemolyticus, a bacteria found in oysters that causes food poisoning. Irradiation was one of many treatments mentioned in the study, but the study's conclusions contained no endorsement of irradiation or evidence that it is the best mitigation technique. Few studies have been done on the effects of irradiating shellfish. One study cited by the FDA risk analysis study as demonstrating the effectiveness of irradiation also finds that irradiation doses at very low levels produced an unpleasant yellow byproduct. The risk analysis does not discuss the safety or nutrition issues surrounding this or other byproducts, such as the class of irradiation byproducts called alkylcyclobutanones. These have been linked with tumor promotion and genetic damage and are produced when fat is irradiated. Shellfish have fat, so alkylcyclobutanones could be formed when shellfish is irradiated. The government should ensure a procedure is safe before permitting its use. We urge the FDA to rescind this rule and deny other pending petitions that would allow more kinds of food to be irradiated. ### Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org. /*Your email ID. --*/ ***************************************************************** 27 [DU-WATCH] The Ecological Implications of the War Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:38:04 -0500 (CDT) autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com "It is said that the Iraq war is about much more than oil. Well, that is no doubt true. But try to imagine what would have happened if the chief product of Iraq were sunflowers, and you will not get the same story. The key fact is that Iraq sits atop the second-largest-and largely unexplored--reserve of hydrocarbon fuel on a planet facing static or declining supplies. Its Oil Ministry was, along with the Ministry of the Interior-ie, the keeper of police records-the only official institution that the invading forces took care to physically protect. In addition, exceptional care was taken to immediately seize the oil fields themselves in order to prevent a repetition of Saddam Hussein's unconscionable fire-setting of 1991 after his defeat became inevitable." The Ecological Implications of the War by Joel Kovel [WTI : World Tribunal on Iraq : Istanbul] "The title of this presentation requires a brief introductory comment, since the notion of the "ecological implications" of war-or of anything else, for that matter-is not commonly brought forward. And when it is, the word, ecology, is often confused with the notion of the "environment." Of course the two terms are intimately related, as referring to the side of things having to do with nature and the external world; in many instances they can be used interchangeably. But there is a major difference as well, which has to do not with facts but relationships. When we speak of our environment, we mean that which is outside us and surrounds us. When we speak, however, of our ecology, we are talking about a pattern within which we are a vital participant. We speak also, when we use ecological language, of these relationships as they form a "whole" that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. From an environmental standpoint, humanity appears as essentially separated from nature, which appears externally, as resources, or assaults us with storms or tsunamis. From an ecological standpoint, however, we are part of nature and nature is part of us. Our relationships with other people as well as animals are ecological in form, and our built society is also a set of ecological relationships. Each structured instance of such relationships we call an "ecosystem." Environmental data are necessary to assess the components of an ecosystem, yet the environmental facts can never account for an ecosystem, which, because we are part of nature, can be human as well as non-human. This enables us to relate society to nature, and to see it as a human ecosystem in which our lives are lived out." (snip) "In short, nothing essential has changed, including the lack of oversight and conscientious supervision by the occupation. How can it, in a climate of built-in chaos that induces the most corrupt and nihilistic behaviors? Thus arise innumerable vivid and heart-breaking personal accounts of the misery of living under conditions of collapsed water, sewage, and electrical systems. These summate in surveys showing, for instance, that 78% of Iraqi households report "severe instability" in electricity, and 66% report the same for piped water, while over 50% say the same for sewage.[13] And these in turn bear witness to the greed, incompetence and nihilism which are the prime legacies of the assault on Iraq. Here is one, entirely characteristic account, obtained by Dahr Jamail from early in 2004: Sadr City, formerly Saddam City, a large slum of Baghdad, has a largely Shi'ite population of over one million poverty stricken inhabitants. The water situation is at a crisis level. Ahmed Abdul Rida points to his tiny, dilapidated water pump which sits quietly on the ground in his small home in Sadr City. "We have one hour of electricity, then none for 8 hours," he says. "This pump is all we have to try to pull some water to our home. So whenever we get some electricity we try to collect what water we can in this bowl." He points to an empty metal bowl that sits near the lifeless pump. When Mr. Rida and other Sadr City residents do get water, most of the time it is brown water from the Tigris. Due to all of the dams upriver from Baghdad, the volume of flow from the Tigris has dropped from 40 billion cubic meters in the 1960's to 16 billion cubic meters today. So the water Mr. Rida gets during his two and a half hours a day of electricity is a concentrated cocktail of pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals from antiquated piping, and unknown amounts of depleted uranium, raw sewage and other chemicals released from American and Iraqi munitions from the 1991 Gulf War, and the more recent Anglo-American Invasion. He points to a bottle of the last water they collected to show a sample of what his family has to drink. It has the color of watered down iced tea and smells like a dirty sock. It is no wonder he and his family are constantly plagued by diarrhea, with many of them suffering from kidney stones. And these are just the most obvious effects for the families in Sadr City who drink the contaminated water; heavy metals in their water also damage the liver, brain and other internal organs. Note that in the cocktail that Mr Rida and his family have to use for life-sustaining water is an "unknown amount" of depleted uranium left over from the two Anglo-American invasions. This echoes the observation of the UN's Haavista and calls for some additional reflection, as the use of DU introduces an entirely new dimension into the ecological disruption brought about by Anglo-American aggression. The United States admits having used DU in the 1991 war, and the figure of 300 tons has been calculated.[14] There is no admission of having used it in the 2003 invasion; nor will the United States admit that DU poses a health hazard-although its own training manuals warn troops of its toxicity, as does a video made by the DoD in 1995. There is, however, no question that an as-yet undisclosed though undoubtedly substantial amount of DU was sown over at least Baghdad and the Basra region in 2003,[15] nor can it be ruled out to have been used since. The hard fact remains that the use of this substance in ordnance, chiefly "bunker-busting" bombs and anti-tank shells, is much cherished for two reasons: because of its superb ability to penetrate even the hardest armor or thickest wall, and then ignite; and because it is essentially free and unlimited in quantity, hundreds of thousands of tons having collected over the era of nuclear production for bombs and power plants. As DU, with its radioactivity and half-life of 4.5 billion years (the age of the solar system) is radically indisposable , the military has chosen to dispose of it against the "enemies of freedom," nor will they be budged in this decision. This Tribunal has already heard testimony regarding DU. Here it only needs to be pointed out that the term, "sown," as a descriptor of how DU has been loosed on Iraq, is morbidly accurate. Because the vectors are tiny dust particles, chiefly of Uranium Oxide, produced by the ignition of DU munitions; and because these can spread anywhere and are virtually imperishable; and because they can be borne through the air and in the water; and because children play in the dust and in and around the many remaining hulks of destroyed targets; and because the dust has also been ingested though polluted water and air; and because the particles, once in the body, can lodge anywhere and produce a host of diseases; and because they also alter germplasm and so are passed down through the generations; and because also in Iraq, health facilities have suffered the general ruin of the infrastructure..for all these reasons, it must be said that an immense ecocatastrophe has been set loose in Iraq, manifest in horrible disease and genetic defect that will continue on down the years into an indefinite future. The same needs also be said for the military personnel who have been exposed and have gotten ill-and who, although they live in countries with advanced health facilities, have to suffer the calculated neglect of a system that cannot afford to admit its crimes.[16] And, inter alia, the same can be said of all of us who are downwind of the particles set loose by the military machine. It follows that amongst the ranks of particular crimes against nature and humanity wrought by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the leading place should be given to the wanton usage of depleted uranium, in clear violation of international covenants against the use of nuclear weapons, and in particular, this weapon. For it is necessary to call things by their right names, and the right name for this is nuclear war, the supreme dismemberment of ecological relationships that have evolved over 4 billion years. Eventually there will be a re-equilibration in Iraq, though at the cost of what suffering can scarcely be imagined. We can only do what we can to see to it that in this as-yet unforeseeable future aggressor of today will have been brought to justice. [1] DOE report. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html [2] There were 123 documented attacks on the 4359 miles of the Iraqi pipeline system between April 2003 and September 2004. As a result of this and other problems such as lack of reliable energy and water supplies, the production of oil, which was 3.0 million barrels/day in 1989, fell to 0.7 m bpd after the first gulf war and rose again to 2.6 by 2001, was only 2.0 m bpd after a year and a half of US occupation. DOE report, op.cit; United Nations Environmental Program report on Iraq, May 2003. [3] In Vietnam, owing to the inconvenient fact that the United States lost the war, this kind of brutal transformation could not be imposed. Instead, normal market mechanisms were brought into play, which left the victorious country in some control of its fate. [4] Joel Kovel, The Enemy of Nature (London: Zed, 2002); Turkish edition [5] Focus on the Global South and GRAIN, "Iraq's new patent law: A declaration of war against farmers." October 2004. www.grain.org/articles/?id=6. [6] Sonja Ann Jozef Boelaert-Suominen, "International Environmental Law and Naval War: The Effect of Marine Safety and Pollution Conventions during International Armed Conflict," Naval War College Newport, Rhode Island Center for Naval Warfare Studies Newport Paper Number Fifteen December 2000. [7] Brad Knickerbocker, "Military gets break from environmental rules," The Christian Science Monitor, Nov 24, 2003. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1124/p02s02-usmi.html. [8] The actual troops in the latest United States war have ended up very poorly trained in any case, in large part because they are National Guard and reservists who never figured on going to Iraq, and often receive only the most cursory training. This is related to the colossal error of failing to realize that the war and occupation would provoke resistance, along with the political need to rely on a volunteer army at all costs, in order to avoid a military draft that would provoke extreme resistance. [9] United Nations Environmental Programme, "Desk Study on the Environment in Iraq," Switzerland, 2003. Khaled Yacoub Oweis, "Postwar Iraq paying heavy environmental price," Reuters June 2, 2005. [10] The supreme industrial disaster that was the explosion of the methyl isocyanate factory in Bhopal, India, in December, 1984, is the paradigmatic example of this. See Kovel, op. cit. [11] Long associated with George Schultz, Secretary of State under Reagan, as Halliburton is associated with Vice-President Dick Cheney-remarkable coincidences, these. [12] Chiefly from the San Francisco Chronicle of March 29 and the Los Angeles Times of April 10, as summarized in Doug Lorimer, "Iraq: Making a killing: the big business of war," GreenLeft Weekly online, http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/625/625p20.htm [13] For detailed and vivid accounts of the disaster comprised by the electricity-water-sewage nexus, see Dahr Jamail (primary contributor), "Bechtel's Dry Run: Iraqis Suffer Water Crisis" Public Citizen, Spring, 2004 (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/reports/); and Christian Parenti, "The Rough Guide to Baghdad," The Nation, July 19, 2004, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=parenti. For the most recent survey, see UNDP, Iraq Living Condition Survey 2004. Volume II, Analytic Report, April 1, 2005. [14] As well as 90 tons in Bosnia and Kosovo, against Serbia. [15] See, for example, the 2004 German-made video by Frieder Wagner and Valentin Thurn, "The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children." (Telepool; available in the US through www.traprockpeace.org). The video shows research testing water and dust samples around areas of the invasion, with positive results, not just for U238, but also Plutonium and U236. [16] See, for example, Juan Gonzalez, "Poisoned? Shocking report reveals local troops may be victims of America's high-tech weapons," NY Daily News, April 3, 2004; "The War's Littlest Victim," NY Daily News, September 29, 2004. [DOC] REPORT FOR THE WORLD TRIBUNAL ON IRAQ File Format: Microsoft Word 2000 - View as HTML The Ecological Implications of the War. by Joel Kovel. The title of this presentation requires a brief introductory comment, since the notion of the ... www.worldtribunal.org/main/popup/kovel_eco.doc - Similar pages WTI : World Tribunal on Iraq : Istanbul 10:00 - 10:20 Joel Kovel: The Ecological Implications of the War 10:20 - 10:40 Witness - Souad Naji Al-Azzawi: Tes. on Radioactive Contamination in Iraq . www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=21 - 35k - Cached - Similar pages ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Need Help? Get Help! Tools and Strategies for Healthy Drug-Free Living. --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 28 Radiation experts concur Pentagon was struck by a missile Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:12:10 -0500 (CDT) version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com Articles, government corruption, freedom of speech, truth Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon, Not Commercial Airliner Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site. http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/31824.htm August 18, 2005 By Greg Szymanski A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the militarybs depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used. bIbm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used,b said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home. Moret, who has spent a life time working in the nuclear field, first as a staff scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California, is now a member of The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a privately funded group studying the devastating effects of depleted uranium especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the missile theory, it is also backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert banished from the Pentagon after the military failed to follow regulations regarding the use, clean up and medical treatment regarding the use of depleted uranium. bWhen you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectilebs impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile,b said Maj. Rokke from his Rantoul, IL home this week. bAnd when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile. Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also looks like a missile was used.b And to prove the governmentbs jetliner theory is wrong, Moret said the quick actions of a friend near the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, provide even more suspicion. Moret recalls on the tragic morning that once she saw the jetliner strike the twin towers and then heard about the Pentagon crash, she immediately called a close friend in Alexandria VA, Dr. Janette Sherman. Thinking radiation might be involved, she quickly asked Dr. Sherman, 77, a radiation expert and medical doctor who lived about 12 miles from the crash site, to get a Geiger counter reading. What the pair of experts found is astonishing. What they found is not only astonishing but four years after 9/11, whatbs even more incredible is that their findings have been completely ignored by most everyone, including the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media, all who appear more interested in rubber stamping the official 9/11 story then getting at the real truth. bDr. Sherman was downwind from the Pentagon on 9/11 and her Geiger counter readings show an extremely high reading, a reading of more than eight to ten times higher than normal,b said Moret, also an expert in the cause and effects of depleted uranium. bDr. Sherman, who is well-respected radiation expert herself, then went about contacting the proper authorities in order to try and alert emergency responders of the radiation risk at the Pentagon crash site. And we have also kept photos of the Geiger counter readings in order to verify what Dr. Sherman found 12 miles away.b After notifying the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NIRS), experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI were alerted and according to Moret, radiation experts later confirmed high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash site possibly from the presence from depleted uranium or other unknown causes. But what disturbed Moret most has been the Bush administrationbs lack of concern and its failure to mount a thorough investigation into what really caused the high radiation levels, saying perhaps the findings might reveal something contrary to the official story that a jetliner rammed through 12 Pentagon walls of solid concrete. bEven if there was depleted uranium used, do you think the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would really care? These are bottom feeders that 20 or 30 years ago wouldnbt have been even allowed to set foot in such high positions of power,b said Moret. Although Dr. Shermanbs Geiger counter canbt be a conclusive finding, another nuclear radiation expert, Marion Fulk, agrees the positive reading, if anything, is suspicious. bIt definitely looks suspicious but of course many factors have to be considered before a conclusion is reached,b said Fulk in a telephone conversation this week. bThe type of Geiger counter used by Dr. Sherman needs to be looked at as well as the possibility of the true source of the radiation, whether it is depleted uranium in a missile, ballast in the airplane or within the structure of the building hit.b Even though no one can be sure, one thing positive is the Bush administration never really seriously cared about addressing the possibility of depleted uranium at the Pentagon just like it cares little about the same problem at the World Trade Center and in the war fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. And, more recently, Moret, Fulk and Maj. Rokke, along with Dennis Kyne, Bob Jones and Mark Zeller, have provided documentation for an explosive video written and produced by Joyce Riley and William Lewis called bBeyond Treason,b providing an in depth look at depleted uranium used in the Gulf Wars and its likelihood of causing numerous civilian and military illnesses. bIt has been determined that the equivalent of more than 400,000 Nagasaki bombs has been released in the middle east since 1991,b said Moret, citing a report and subsequent speech at a 2000 depleted uranium conference given by Professor Yagasaki, a physicist and well-respected nuclear radiation expert. And in the 89 minute video, exploring a massive government cover up, Riley and Lewis point out the unexplained illnesses in civilians and military personal may be the cause of depleted uranium or perhaps a combination of overlapping causes, including chemical and biological exposure and the use of experimental vaccines. The writers of Beyond Treason, added: bThe ailing Gulf War heroes from all 27 coalition countries slowly die from of bunknown causes,b they wait for answers from their respective governments, but no satisfying or even credible answers have come forth from the military establishment. Records that span over a decade point to negligence and even culpability on the part of the U.S. Department of Defense and their bdisposable armyb mentality. bThe VA has determined that 250,000 troops are now permanently disabled, 15,000 troops are dead and over 425,000 are ill and slowly dying from what the Department of Defense still calls a mystery disease. How many more will have to die before action is taken?b And in February, 2004, a conference called bDialogues with Decision Makersb was held in New Delhi, India, where a group of experts gathered for the prevention of nuclear war and looked closely at the depleted uranium problem in the Middle East. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of the Naval Staff in India, reported the following shocking details about the effects of depleted uranium: bIn the 2003 war, the Iraqibs were subjected to the Pentagonbs radioactive arsenal, mainly in the urban centers, unlike in the deserts in 1991. The aggregate effects of illnesses and long term disabilities and genetic birth defects will be apparent only 2008 onwards. bBy now, half of all the 697,000 US soldiers involved in the 1991 war have reported serious illnesses. According the American Gulf War Veterans Association, more than 30% of these soldiers are chronically ill, and receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration. bNear the Republican Palace where US troops stood guard and over 1000 employees walked in and out, the radiation readings were the hottest in Iraq, at nearly 1900 times background radiation levels. bAt a roadside stand, selling fresh bunches of parsley, mint, and onions, children played on a burnt out Iraqi tank just outside Baghdad, the Geiger counter registered 1000 times normal background radiation. bThe Pentagon and the United Nations estimate that the US and Britain used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armor piercing shells made of DU during attacks in March-April 2003, far more than the 1991 Gulf War (this does not include air dispensed DU munitions and missiles),b wrote the Post Intelligencer. bThe long term effects, as Dr Asaf Durakovic elaborates, after the early neurological symptoms are cancer, and related radiation illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, joint and muscle pain, neurological and/or nerve damage, mood disturbances, auto-immune deficiencies, lung and kidney damage, vision problems, skin rupture, increase in miscarriages, maternal mortality and genetic birth defects/deformation. bFor years the US government described the Gulf War Syndrome as a post traumatic stress disorder. It was labeled as a psychological problem or simply as mysterious unrelated ailments much in the same way as health problems of Vietnam veterans suffering from Agent Orange poisoning.b ***************************************************************** 29 Hawk Eye: Harkin honors IAAP warriors Thursday, August 18, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST The Hawk Eye Before the money, comes the accolades. Sen. Tom Harkin recently honored several people for their efforts to secure compensation for former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant nuclear weapons workers, reading their names into the Congressional Record. In his June 20 statement, the Iowa Democrat acknowledged Joe Shannon, Lasca Yerington, Sharon Shumaker, Marge Forster and Nancy Harman for their help on a Burlington Advisory Board working on the compensation problem. The statement came one day after Congress approved automatic $150,000 payments to plant energy workers suffering from cancer. Harkin also thanked Shirley Wiley and Ed Webb for adding their names to a petition with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health seeking the automatic compensation. Jack Polson, Sy Iverson, Paula Graham (Yerington's sister) and Vaughn Moore were cited for "their willingness to repeatedly challenge the assumptions that were made about the work performed at the plant, and about how that work was done." Those challenges forced government scientists to admit they lacked evidence to determine how much radiation workers at the plant encountered. That admission paved the way for automatic $150,000 reimbursement for most cancer victims. Harkin commended a team from the University of Iowa School of Public Health, led by physician Laurence Fuortes, for their efforts to monitor the health of former workers, and members of his own staff for "their years of sustained work on this effort." First and foremost, the senator paid tribute to Bob Anderson and his wife Kathy. A one–time security supervisor on the atomic weapons line, Anderson blew the whistle on the secret program in a letter to Harkin in 1997. "Bob and Kathy have weathered the ups and downs of this process with patience, good humor and great fortitude," Harkin said. "It will be a proud day for me when they actually receive a compensation check in hand from the Treasury. "It speaks volumes that a letter from one Iowan can set in motion a monumental process that, in the end, will bring acknowledgment, compensation, and a measure of justice to so many." At least some of those mentioned in Harkin's statement have received certificates signed by the senator. Yerington got hers Tuesday night at a gathering in Burlington sponsored by the Department of Labor to explain lesser–known parts of the compensation program. The certificate was signed, "Thanks for fighting for justice, Your Senator, Tom Harkin." Yerington plans to frame it and hang it on her wall, but not before she makes copies for her children. More than likely, Graham's certificate will hang nearby. "We're proud for all the people, for all they've done," Yerington said Wednesday. "We've worked six years trying to get this thing through." The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com ***************************************************************** 30 WOI: Former IAAP workers, families deal with delays August 18, 2005 BURLINGTON, Iowa Former workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and their families say long delays on compensation claims from the federal government are frustrating because they're not getting any information. The U-S Labor Department wrapped up two days of meetings in Burlington yesterday to explain the program. More than 500 former workers and family members showed up to voice their concerns with the delays. The ammunition plant, in nearby Middletown, produced nuclear weapons during the Cold War.Under the classification, anyone who worked at the plant for a cumulative 250 days between 1947 and 1974 and has a diagnosable condition under the rules qualifies for compensation. As of last week, more than 27-hundred former workers or family had filed claims. Of those, only 63 had been paid. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and WOI. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 AU ABC: NT Senator under fire for missing nuclear dump vote Thursday, 18 August 2005. 19:00 (AEST)Thursday, 18 August 2005. The Northern Territory Opposition has accused the Territory Government of making a thuggish attack on CLP Senator Nigel Scullion over his approach to the proposed nuclear waste facility. The Territory Government has pressured Senator Scullion to say whether he would cross the floor to vote against a waste facility in the Northern Territory. NT Labor Senator Trish Crossin says Senator Scullion was deliberately absent from the Senate for today's vote on the planned radioactive waste dump. The Senate passed the motion, calling on the Federal Government to honour its election promise not to put a dump in the Territory but Senator Scullion was not present. NT Opposition Leader Jodeen Carney told the NT Parliament that Senator Scullion today supported a motion in the Senate against the dump. "In spite of what you and others have had say about him, Senator Scullion did stand up for the Territory," she said. "Acting Chief Minister will you now apologise to this House and to Senator Scullion for your political grandstanding." Senator Scullion was not in the Senate chamber at the time of the vote, but a spokesman says he would have supported the motion if he had been there. Senator Crossin says she is pleased the Senate endorsed her motion but says it is "strange" that it passed without debate. "It's unfortunate he wasn't there - he had a chance to come and sit with myself and the Greens and the Democrats," she said. "As I said, his Government actually called 'no', they didn't want to support the motion. "The Senate has supported that motion though, so this was Senator Scullion's chance to stand up for the Territory." ***************************************************************** 32 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Nuclear waste site bids 2005.08.19 The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper The city of Gyeongju applied for selection as the site for the construction of a low-degree nuclear waste storage facility this week to become the first local administration unit to do so as the government renewed efforts to settle the decades-old issue. Watching several other municipalities and counties also moving to make a bid this time, one just wishes that there will be no repetition of the fiascos of Anmyeondo, Gureopdo and Wido. Pohang, Uljin and Yeongdeok on the southern East Coast, Samcheok to the north and Gunsan on the West Coast are also known to be ready to offer a site for the safekeeping of low-degree nuclear waste, the by-products of atomic power generation excluding spent fuel and other high-radiation materials. Since the Commerce, Indu-stry and Resources Ministry decided to separate storage facilities for low- and high-degree nuclear waste, local administrations found it easier to persuade residents on the relative harmlessness of the project. The government proposed the same reward of 300 billion won ($300 million) for local development projects. Now everyone remembers the chaotic situation that resulted after the mayor of Buan County, North Jeolla Province, prematurely applied for the establishment of a nuclear waste facility on Wido Island in 2003 without asking the consent of the local council. Public opinion was split on the island, in the county and on the provincial and national levels. Violent confrontations between resident groups and police forces continued for months. When the government first looked at a seaward site on Anmyeondo on the West Coast for radioactive waste storage in 1990, massive residents' demonstrations foiled the plan. In 1994, Gureopdo, a scantily inhabited island off Incheon, was chosen but it was abandoned after an unstable geological fault was discovered. And then the government shifted to the application-incentives pro-cess, which, however, was stalled by the Buan incident. In the meantime, the number of nuclear reactors for power generation increased to 20 with the addition of two 1 megawatt units at the Uljin plant this month and the nation's power dependence on nuclear plants passed the 40 percent mark. In this age of high oil price, Koreans cannot but use nuclear energy to sustain industries and maintain their lifestyle despite the entreaties of anti-nuclear, environmental advocates. As soon as Gyeongju City made its application, anti-nuclear activists launched a rejection campaign. They have an additional cause since the city is Korea's most highly valued historical area on the UNESCO's World Heritage list, although the proposed location of Bonggil-ri on the seaside is many kilometers away from the Silla era relics and there already exists an atomic power plant complex with four reactors. In Gyeongju or other locations bidding for the project, both the central and local administration authorities should now be extremely careful in ascertaining the collective opinion of residents. Greater efforts should be made to inform the residents of the safety of the storage facilities to be built in their home area than of the economic incentives they are about to have, which can easily backfire as we have witnessed in Buan. ***************************************************************** 33 SitNews: Ultimate Job Security by Bob Ciminel ALT="Sitnews - Stories In The News - Ketchikan, Alaska - News, August 18, 2005 In case you've never heard of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, it is the proposed location of a national repository for spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and high level waste from government production facilities. Construction of a national waste repository was mandated by Congress after the Three Mile Island Accident in March 1979. Along with the creation of the repository, Congress also tasked the Department of Energy to take possession of the spent nuclear fuel stored at the various power plant sites throughout the United States. The DOE did not keep its end of the bargain; consequently, nuclear utilities had to "re-rack" their spent fuel storage pools to increase their capacity and build interim storage facilities, called dry cask storage, until such time when the fuel can be shipped to a Federal repository. This issue of "what do we do with spent fuel" arose because former President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order banning the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel in the United States. The Yucca Mountain Repository has been tied up by political activists for the past 25 years because the words "nuclear" and "safe" are used in the same sentence. By definition, anything related to nuclear power is unsafe and can never be safe. How anyone can rationalize that it is safer to store spent nuclear fuel stored at over 125 different sites around the country instead of burying it beneath a mountain in the Nevada desert has to be the epitome of shortsightedness, a common ailment afflicting politicians. Shortsightedness may be endemic among politicians, but Washington's bureaucrats are immune to it, as evidenced by the most recent impediment to approving the Yucca Mountain Repository. The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that the repository has to be regulated by the Nuclear Regulator Commission for one million years. Yep, that's correct, 1,000,000 years, the equivalent of 25,000 generations. I'm not a biologist, but I suspect that 1,000,000 years from now our progeny will not resemble us, nor will they be the same physiologically. Evolution, or intelligent design if you wish, has a way of changing living organisms. Our bodies, for example, are slowly adapting to toxic materials that did not exist before the Industrial Age, one of which is radiation produced by nuclear reactions, such as splitting the atom. Think about it. After one million years of exposure to the plethora of pollutants mankind generates every day, why should we worry about someone being exposed to what is equivalent to the background radiation a resident of Denver, Colorado receives every year. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't sure how to develop regulations to cover the one-million-year monitoring period for the Yucca Mountain Repository. No government agency has ever regulated anything for that long. However, you can be sure the bureaucrats in Washington will rise to the challenge. We should be worried that other government agencies may try to outdo the NRC. Listen! You can hear the conversation going on at the IRS right now. "Hey, if the NRC can do it, so can we. Let's propose taxation ad infinitum!" Bob Ciminel's articles may include satire and parody, and mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell the difference. Bob Ciminel lives in Roswell, Georgia, and works for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Bob is also a conductor on the Blue Ridge Scenic Railway. ciminel@sitnews.us Bob Ciminel ©2001 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 34 Bellona: Construction of nuclear submarine reactor storage facility on schedule Rosatom's Inspection for the management of decommissioning of nuclear and radiological installations completed examination of the construction progress of the facility at the Nerpa shipyard in Sayda bay on the Kola Peninsula and is satisfied with the results, Interfax reported. 2005-08-18 18:36 Rosatom's Inspection for the management of decommissioning of nuclear and radiological installations completed examination of the construction progress of the facility at the Nerpa shipyard in Sayda bay on the Kola Peninsula and is satisfied with the results, Interfax reported. At the moment the facility contains 9 retired nuclear submarines’ hulls and 48 reactor compartments, including the one from Kursk submarine. The piers in Saida bay have reached their capacity and cannot receive more reactor compartments what can significantly reduce the nuclear submarines dismantling progress. The new onshore facility will accommodate 120 reactor compartments. The shipyard’s chief engineer Rostislav Rimdenok told Interfax news agency that the German partners have already delivered all the necessary equipment for construction works. The German specialists from IMG company are arriving at Nerpa in the end of August to adjust the hydraulic equipment. On September 9, the Russian-German technical committee will gather in Murmansk to discuss the technical issues of the project implementation. Through its most prominent nuclear decommissioning contractor, Energiewerke Nord GmbH, or EWN, Germany will build an enormous 5.6 hectare warehouse type enclosure on the banks of Sayda Bay for onshore storage of the irradiated reactor compartments and hulls currently stored afloat in the bay. The Germans will also improve transportation and mechanical infrastructure for dealing with the reactor compartments. Sayda Bay, originally a fishing village just inside the Murmansk Fjord north of the Nerpa shipyard, was commandeered by the Russian Navy in 1990 as a storage site for irradiated submarine hulls and reactor compartments that the fleet cuts out of its retired subs. At the time, the Russian Navy estimated it could store its reactor compartments on the water at Sayda Bay for 10 years, during which, it was hoped, a more permanent solution would be found. Along with the construction of the warehouse itself, EWN will oversee the installation of some 70 special transport devices for the irradiated hulls and reactor compartments to move them to their new onshore berths. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 35 Bellona: HEU-LEU program reached the middle Precisely the half of the agreed 500 tonnes of highly enriched weapon-grade uranium was blended down to low enriched uranium and shipped to the US power plants. 2005-08-17 19:52 In February 1993, Moscow and Washington reached an agreement On the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons. As a follow-up of the agreement, the two countries signed the HEU-LEU (highly enriched uranium - low enriched uranium) contract in 1994, under which 500 tons of HEU were to be purchased by the US Enrichment Corp. (USEC) until 2013. Recently 42 tonnes of low enriched uranium have been shipped from St Petersburg to Baltimore in the United States. Since the beginning of the program on May 31, 1995, the USA received 7350 tonnes of LEU down blended from 250 tonnes of HEU – precisely the half of the total quantity stipulated by the Agreement, minatom.ru reports. So, the HEU-LEU Program has reached the middle and is entering its final stage. Thanks to this program Russia has already earned $5.3 billion. The profit goes to the Russian State budget and on financing the Russian nuclear industry. In 2004, the earnings from the program amounted 10 percent of the total Russian budget non-tax revenues. In 2004, only 16 percent of the received funding is spent on increasing safety at nuclear installations. The bulk of this HEU-LEU funding is spent on construction of new nuclear sites outside of Russia (41 percent). Only 7.8 percent goes to reforms within Russia’s nuclear industry. Another 29 percent of the proceeds are used for unspecified expenses (approximately $162 million dollars in 2004). In reality this funding channel not only helps Russia to build nuclear power plants and other nuclear sites in such countries as Iran, India and China, but also supports the Cold War era nuclear infrastructure that has remained basically unchanged since Soviet times, and could barely survive without this funding feeding tube. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 36 Bellona: Turkish officials bust peddlers of Russia-origin uranium in Istanbul Two men were arrested in Istanbul while trying to sell uranium of Russian origin in a sting operation conducted by Turkish special police, Russian media reported Wednesday. A sting operation foiled the sale of Russian-origin uranium in Istanbul. newsru.com Charles Digges, 2005-08-18 13:46 The men’s names and nationalities were not released by Turkish authorities, but they where taken into custody while trying to hock a glass tube containing 173 grams of uranium-235 and uranium-238 for a price tag of $7m to Turkish law enforcement agents posing as potential buyers. The detainees said they had smuggled the uranium from Russia, the mosnews.ru Web site reported Wednesday. Turkish authorities fear the substance was eventually headed for terrorist hands. Authorities are concerned that incidents in recent years involving the seizure of uranium in Turkey are becoming more common. A spokesman for the Turkish security services said: “The only place where the uranium could eventually land is in the hands of terrorists,” the Itar-Tass news agency reported. A source at Rosatom, who declined to be named, said in a telephone interview with Bellona Web from Moscow that he was aware of the seizure and confirmed the material had “most likely come from Russia,” but added he could not disclose from what facility the radioactive substance might have been taken. It was unclear whether Rosatom, in fact, knew. Sources in the Turkish security forces noted that the uranium had the capacity to meet one-year’s worth of New York City’s electricity requirement, Turkey’s Anatolia news agency reported. Turkish nuclear authorities monitoring the uranium content of the seized material. newru.com After examining the substance, Turkish Atomic Energy Agency experts said it contained 17 percent of the uranium-235 isotope. The remaining 83 percent was the uranium-238 isotope which does not contribute directly to the fission process. Under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—of which Turkey is also a signatory—sale, purchase and transportation of any amount of uranium are subject to international restrictions. What can one do with uranium-235? Natural uranium consists largely of two isotopes—uranium-235 and uranium-238. Energy production in most nuclear reactors is from the fission, or splitting of the uranium-235 atoms, a process which releases energy in the form of heat. It is also a necessary component in the production of nuclear bombs. Uranium-235 is an especially radioactive isotope during the fission process and releases huge quantities of energy. Uranium-235 is achieved during the enrichment of uranium ore in centrifuges designed for the process. The quantity of uranium-235 in natural uranium is insignificant, and the uranium-238 isotope is unsuitable for making bombs. Most nuclear reactors use low enriched uranium with a concentration of uranium-235 of less that five percent. The material seized in Turkey had a higher concentration of uranium-235, but was still not enough to consider it weapons grade material. In order to achieve uranium with a higher enrichment of uranium 235, which could make it weapons usable, is a highly technical and difficult to conceal process. But low enriched uranium can still be used in radiological dispersal devices, or dirty bombs, consisting of standard explosives and radioactive material, which would spread contamination over a wide-spread area. Plutonium, kobalt-60, ceasium-137 and iridium-192 are also suitable to make a dirty bomb. In order to make a proper nuclear bomb, however, some 40 kilograms of enriched uranium would be required. Stanford Database Tracks Lost Radwaste to Stem Nuclear Terrorism The three creators at California's Stanford University of the world’s most comprehensive database of smuggled, missing, stolen and abandoned radiation sources assert that the former Soviet Union is nothing short of a supermarket for the would be terrorist. Their Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and Orphan Radiation Sources documents some 850 incidents from the past decade — everything from radioactive trash carelessly tossed out by a cancer clinic to weapons-usable plutonium and uranium smuggled out of the former Soviet Union. Nuclear thefts documented in Russia Stanford University in California, which runs perhaps the most comprehensive data-base if nuclear theft from facilities in the former Soviet Union, has concluded that over the last ten years some 40 kilograms of uranium and plutonium have gone missing from facilities in Russia and the former republics. Most of this material was recovered. American special authorities have documented a number of these thefts: -1.5 kilograms of enriched uranium went missing from Russia’s Luch facility; -3 kilograms of enriched uranium disappeared from an institute in Moscow in 1993; -an unaccounted for amount of radioactive materials disappeared from a warehouse in Chelyabinsk, near the Mayak Chemical Combine. The latest theft scandal to involve the theft of uranium and other radioactive materials happened at the Atomflot ice-breaker shipyard in 2003. In this case, Atomflot’s Deputy Director Alexander Tyulyakov was arrested after allegedly trying to sell containers of uranium-235 and 238, radon-226 and lead-214. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 37 The Herald: Idyllic atoll may become world’s biggest source of uranium Web Issue 2336 August 18 2005 ALLAN LAING August 18 2005 IT is an idyllic coral island perched in the splendid isolation of the South Pacific. Its economy has thus far depended upon the export of coconuts and a healthy international trade in rare postage stamps. However, now the tiny nation of Niue (population 1200 and dropping fast) has discovered that it may be sitting on, if not exactly a goldmine, then possibly the biggest source of uranium in the world. An Australian-based exploration company is about to begin test drillings on the 100 square mile atoll. Yamarna Goldfields says initial geological profiles suggest that deposits could be "equal to or greater than" those found at the Olympic Dam site in the Australian outback, currently the world's largest single source of uranium. If the test bores prove its suspicions, then it could not have come at a better time for the island. Situated 1550 miles northeast of New Zealand, Niue does not have its problems to seek. Last month it was reported that its future was under threat because of migration. The former British colony's population has fallen to just 1200. It was 4000 when it was granted self-government status 30 years ago. By stark contrast, almost 20,000 first generation Niueans live in New Zealand  and more are emigrating all the time. Details of an official head count last year were kept quiet, reportedly because it showed that the island's population had dipped to only 840. At the time, Young Vivian, Niue's prime minister, said: "Creating jobs is the key. People don't want to come back and just twiddle their thumbs." His prayers may about to be answered. Mr Vivian said this week that geological experts had "been off and on the island many times now and this time they're absolutely sure that the uranium is there". Richard Revelins, Yamarna director, said the company will discuss its plans with the Niue government soon. "We're planning to be there in a couple of weeks time. We will be doing some geochem work and some soil sampling and we plan to be drilling in the next 60 to 90 days," he said. Niue  the name means "Behold the coconut"  was originally settled by migrating Tongans, Samoans and Cook Islanders. It became a British colony in 1900 but, the following year, it was annexed to New Zealand. In 1974 it became a sovereign state, one of the smallest in the world. Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 38 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear institute chief says industry needs help on Yucca Today: August 18, 2005 at 11:18:30 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Even though a national energy bill has been signed, the nuclear industry still needs help from Congress on the question of what to do with nuclear waste, the head of the Nuclear Energy Institute said today. The industry wants Congress to make it easier to fund the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and may be looking for additional help in other areas. Skip Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said more legislation might help "unravel some of the sticking points" regarding Yucca Mountain, such as funding, land claims for the proposed rail line and other regulations, although he did not get into specifics. He also wants the industry to do a better job describing what is really going on at Yucca Mountain. He said too many people believe that the plan is to move the waste to Nevada, put it in the mountain, seal it and say, "Here you go, grandkids." But Bowman said the Energy Department is likely to leave the mountain open for up to 300 years so it could pull the waste out for other purposes, such as reprocessing. Additionally, there will be monitoring at the site, he said at a press briefing today. The industry supports re-examining the potential for reprocessing, a method to treat nuclear waste to be used again as fuel. It has not been done in the United States for years. Bowman said it is an option to complement, not replace Yucca. Laws regarding nuclear waste allow the department to exercise that option and do not specify how long the mountain must remain open while holding the waste. The department said 300 years in the Final Environmental Impact statement issued in 2002, but Congress could choose to extend that plan, Bowman said. Joe Egan, a lawyer handling Nevada's court fight against the planned dump, said the state's research does not support the prospect of the department keeping Yucca Mountain open for 300 years. Also, no equipment exists that could take out the waste and the department has not planned for that. He said the state is preparing to oppose the points NEI is raising during the licensing hearing from Yucca Mountain. President Bush signed a massive energy bill 10 days ago. The plan contains several incentives and programs aimed at developing new nuclear power plants. Nuclear power generates 20 percent of the country's electricity through 103 reactors across the country, but a new plant has not been built in years. Bowman said it would be "irresponsible" to work on developing new power plants without a plan for disposal of the nuclear waste that a new plant would create. Bowman said he "feels certain" with the growing support behind the industry in the United States and throughout the world, that the nuclear waste problem will be solved. The Energy Department was supposed to take the waste from the nuclear power plants in 1998 but that schedule came and went. Bowman said the 2010 proposed opening has also "slipped," but he has not lost confidence in the effort. "For sure there is not a drop dead date, but we do need to see progress," Bowman said. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who leads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in July that he is looking to introduce a comprehensive Yucca-related bill once the energy bill passed. Bowman said he has not spoken to Barton about the bill. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 39 Daily Sentinel: Uranium boom gives new lease on mine land By By SALLY SPAULDING The Daily Sentinel Thursday, August 18, 2005 Thanks to a significant increase in the market price of uranium and vanadium, those in the mining industry are already making plans for the next 10 years. The U.S. Department of Energy, which administers the Uranium Leasing Program, leases tracts of land in San Miguel, Montrose and Mesa counties for the exploration and production of uranium and vanadium ores. The price upswing in 2004 led leaseholders to resume uranium and vanadium mining activities on about half of 13 active lease tracts, and the federal government is once again receiving production royalties from these active mining operations. Im signing checks for over $100,000 a month in royalty payments, said Rich Ziegler, executive vice president for Cotter Corp., a uranium and vanadium mining company that holds 10 of the 13 active lease tracts in the program. Were producing at a good rate now. Because of this renewed interest, the Department of Energy is preparing a new environmental assessment of the leasing program to determine if it is in the publics best interest to continue and/or expand the current program to include an additional 25 lease tracts. The department will consider: Allowing the leases to expire and ending the program. Continuing the program as it currently exists for an additional period of time. Expanding the existing program to include the existing leases and offer the 25 inactive lease tracts to the domestic uranium industry through a competitive bid process. Ziegler said he and others in the industry were pulling hard for the third option, with Cotter hoping to gather even more lease tracts for production. I think its a great program, Ziegler said. Its still a lucrative business right now, and hopefully some other miners can have the same opportunity to get involved. At a public meeting last week in Naturita, 15 citizens showed up to voice their opinions on the programs three options. All were in favor of option No. 3, and all in attendance were pro-mining. Theyre used to mining and mining activities in that area, said Michael Tucker, leasing program manager. Its just no big deal to them. Several environmental groups based on the Western Slope said they had been keeping an eye on the issue but were not aware of the meeting. Tucker said the department was tight on a time frame for the meeting and did little in terms of notification. Officials with the Bureau of Land Managements office in Grand Junction said they were not aware of the meeting until this week but planned to be a partner in the program. The bureau will have an opportunity to review the environmental assessment in advance of the public, Tucker said. And the public still has time to voice their opinion, he said. The public is invited to review and comment during the Environmental Assessment process through Aug. 31. Comments can be made through any of the following mechanisms: E-mail comments to , call toll free at (800) 399-5618, or fax comments to (970) 248-6040. © 2005 Cox Newspapers, Inc. - The Daily Sentinel ***************************************************************** 40 NEWS.com.au: World scrambles for NT uranium (19-08-2005) August 19, 2005 THE Northern Territory is at the centre of an extraordinary scramble for uranium. Sixteen companies have taken out dozens of exploration licences. They are spending more than $10 million a year and employing about 50 workers. But Minerals Council chief executive Kezia Purick said the industry would be worth billions of dollars and employ hundreds of people when mines start opening. The first could be in production within four years following Canberra's overruling of Territory Government objections to more mines. The Territory is believed to have at least 15 per cent of the world's economically recoverable uranium. Along with South Australia, it also has the richest ore bodies. "This makes Australian uranium the cheapest in the world to mine," Ms Purick said. The Ranger mine in Kakadu makes up 7 per cent of the NT's economic activity. "And that's just one mine," Ms Purick said. The first new mine is likely to be at Batchelor, 110km south of Darwin. Sydney's Compass Resources is believed to have identified an economical deposit of the mineral. Company director Malcolm Humphreys said: "From go to whoa, we could be operating in about four years. That's very fast." The yellowcake would be trucked north to Darwin and exported. The boom is so frenzied Perth-based Regency Mines managing director Ken Watson took out an ad in the Northern Territory News asking to buy uranium properties. "I want to plug some uranium into my companies," he said. "The Territory is the flavour of the month because the Federal Government has moved in and said, 'stuff you blokes - we're getting on with uranium mining'. "The Territory is about to get its time in the sun." Another uranium miner, Perth's Cazaly Resources, has applied for an exploration licence at Hart's Range, northeast of Alice Springs. ***************************************************************** 41 LA Daily News: Vessels installed to purge perchlorate from the water supply Well to be treated - NWSSantaClarita Article Launched: 08/17/2005 12:00:00 AM By Eugene Tong, Staff Writer SAUGUS - Two vessels intended to purge the chemical perchlorate from a well that could serve a planned Valencia development have been installed along the Santa Clara River, water officials said Tuesday. The equipment, erected by the Valencia Water Co. just outside a regional pumping station along Bouquet Canyon and Soledad Canyon roads, would treat the complete flow of water coming out of the alluvial well roughly 1,300 gallons per minute, said Bob DiPrimio, the utility's president. "The technology is straightforward," he said. "In terms of the footprint it doesn't take up much area." The shallow well tested positive in April for perchlorate and was removed from service. Perchlorate is a rocket-fuel ingredient that, in high doses, has been connected to thyroid problems. The well was part of the water supply serving The Newhall Land and Farming Company's 2,200-home West Creek development in northern Valencia. This is the sixth well to be contaminated by chemicals that migrated into local groundwater from the Whittaker-Bermite munitions plant, which closed in 1987. Though a large perchlorate plume has spread into the much-deeper Saugus Aquifer, water officials said they believe this case was likely due to surface seepage from January's rainstorms. The state recommends no more than 6 parts per billion of perchlorate in drinking water the well tested at about 10 parts Whittaker-Bermite's executors agreed to pay $500,000 to treat this well while they negotiate a larger settlement with the Castaic Lake Water Agency to clean up the remaining wells at an estimated cost of $15.3 million. It will take several days to install the filtering vessels, but they won't be activated for several weeks while the Valencia Water Co. secures the necessary permits from the state Department of Health Services and other regulators. Once treatment is completed, the vessels are slated to join a larger perchlorate treatment plant the CLWA is planning to build behind its Rio Vista Pumping Station, DiPrimio said. "We plan to move these units over to the Castaic Lake Water Agency treatment site that they're planning to install next year," he said. Eugene Tong, (661) 257-5253 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 42 The Boston Globe: Utah firm to aid West Concord cleanup - Office will open at Superfund site By Davis Bushnell, Globe Correspondent | August 18, 2005 A Utah company will set up a field office early next month at Starmet Corp.'s Superfund site in West Concord and will begin inventorying and removing more than 3,700 barrels of depleted uranium from the 46-acre property off Route 62. The project is slated to be completed by March 31, 2006. It had been scheduled to start in March of this year and to be wrapped up seven months later, but negotiations over costs forced the timetable to be moved back. The issue was an increase in the original cost estimate from $5.2 million to $8.3 million, reflected by two out-of-state contractors' bids. State officials then had to ask the US Army to pick up the revised tab. The Army's involvement stems from the manufacture by Starmet's predecessor company, Nuclear Metals Inc., of uranium-tipped bullets from 1970 to 1999 for military use. The Army's agreement early last month to pay for the additional costs set in motion final contract talks between the state Department of Environmental Protection and Envirocare of Utah Inc., one of the two contractors that submitted bids. The name of the other contractor has not been revealed. On Aug. 10, the department issued a notice to proceed to Envirocare, which is based in Salt Lake City. The company is already familiar with the Starmet property and will establish a field office around Sept. 5, as the environmental protection department has requested, said Johnny Bowne, director of business development. When it arrives next month, Envirocare will first verify the number of barrels of uranium stored in Starmet buildings and then send out samples of what's in the barrels to laboratories for analysis, Bowne said. After that, he said, the contents of the barrels will be packaged securely and taken to the company's uranium-disposal facility near Salt Lake City. This was greeted as overdue but very encouraging news by a leader of a Concord activist group that has been closely monitoring the Starmet site since June 2001 when it went on the US Environmental Protection Agency's list of the nation's most contaminated properties. ''The removal of the barrels will remove a potential [public health] threat" and speed up the Superfund [cleanup] process, said James West of Concord, technical assistance coordinator of the Citizens Research and Environmental Watch group. It has a $50,000 technical assistance grant from the EPA. Environmental officials have emphasized that the barrels of depleted uranium in Starmet buildings do not constitute a danger because they are guarded 24 hours a day. In another development, the project manager for a company conducting a remedial investigation of the site said work will begin in October on obtaining additional soil samples and seven more monitoring wells to the 99 spots that are already at the site. Bruce Thompson of De Maximis Inc. said some surface soil samples have revealed some uranium, which, he added, ''is not unusual," given the nature of the work that had been done for the Army. ''But we'll want to go deeper in the soil, looking for uranium," he said. ''And, of course, we'll be keeping abreast of the work that Envirocare will be doing." The company is evaluating air, soil, and ground-water data on behalf of the Army and four other parties cited by the EPA in 2003 for contaminating the Starmet property. The others are the US Department of Energy, Whittaker Corp. of Simi Valley, Calif., Textron Inc. of Providence, and MONY Life Insurance Co. of New York City.[ /] © Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. More: ***************************************************************** 43 lamonitor.com: Lab ships plutonium sources to WIPP The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor Weapons-grade nuclear material recovered by Los Alamos National Laboratory is on its way to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad. Fourteen steel drums of plutonium-239 left the Hill on July 28, the first permanent reduction in the lab's brimming inventory of sealed sources in more than two years. "Finally, we're beginning to dispose of the sources we have recovered," said Lee Leonard, project leader for the lab's off-site source recovery program. Only the Pu-239 sources that have been determined to be defense related are eligible for disposal at WIPP. "For that segment, there is a path to permanently remove it from the environment," Leonard said. "Eventually, we will need a path for everything else." Leonard said about 100 drums of Pu-239 sources, collected over the past couple of years have been stored as special nuclear material at the laboratory. Because the lab has run out of storage capacity, collection of Pu-239 has been stopped, and some material has had to be sent to the Nevada Test Site for temporary storage. Leonard said there was still plutonium-239 at large in the country, most of it at universities where physics experiments had been conducted with the material. "Right now, we have on our plate about a hundred and some sources that we need to recover, about 2,800 grams total in sources around the country," he said. Another 300-400 plutonium-239 sources are still in use but will need to be recovered eventually. The Department of Energy has estimated the amount of plutonium needed to make a small nuclear weapon at 4,000 grams, according to a resource page on weapons of mass destruction on the Federation of American Scientists website. Used and unwanted sources of radioactive material have become a major national security concern since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Also known as Radiological Dispersal Devices, dirty bombs can be made using any explosive that could diffuse the radioactive material. The LANL collection project dates to 1979, when the first abandoned or unwanted plutonium sources began arriving at the laboratory. In Dec. 2000, the first 14 drums of sealed sources were logged in. In April 2003, the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) prodded the Department of Energy to raise its priority on the source program. Since then, Leonard said the DOE has responded to the higher level of concern by transferring the program to the NNSA and, within LANL, to the nuclear non-proliferation directorate. "Our funding is more stable. We've been directed to increase the scope to other isotopes," he said. "We've done that and we're still recovering sources from all over the country." A new GAO report is expected shortly. The sealed source project also works with the International Atomic Energy Agency to recover sources on the international level. The project's goal for this year was to bring in another 1,500 sources. Leonard said that goal would be exceeded by the end of the fiscal year, for a combined total of over 11,000 taken out of the public sphere. Sealed sources come from a variety of commercial, industrial and medical applications. Heart pacemakers used plutonium sources for long-term power needs in the 1970s. The New Mexico Environment Department announced on Aug. 5 that a moisture and density gauge containing two sealed sources was stolen from the state fairgrounds in Albuquerque. "It's still out there. We're still looking for it," said Jon Goldstein, the department's communication director this morning. Leonard said it is a very common for such gauges to be stolen from construction sites and then abandoned when the thieves see the radioactive symbol. "One gauge improperly used could cause contamination," Leonard said, "but it wouldn't make a dirty bomb." The shipments of plutonium-239 from LANL to WIPP are packed inside stainless steel pipe components, which are in turn packed in drums, which go inside two nested containers padded with a ten-inch layer of polyurethane foam. The laboratory's announcement said the waste drums are shipped inside the TRUPACT-II container, a steel-coated spherical capsule, 10-feet high by eight-feet in diameter. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 DailyBulletin.com: Questionnaire will gauge knowledge on former Aerojet land Article Published: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - By Mason Stockstill, Staff Writer CHINO HILLS - Residents of Chino Hills will soon be asked how much they know about the cleanup of a former weapons facility in their neighborhood. About 12,000 questionnaires will be mailed out to homes in the city as an early step toward developing a "community education plan" regarding the Aerojet facility at the end of Woodview Road, west of the Los Serranos area of the city. "It's asking about what level of information they would like to receive, and if they have any concerns or desires of specific information they'd like to receive in the community education plan," said Tim Murphy, director of public affairs for GenCorp, Aerojet's parent company. The plan is part of the agreement Aerojet made with the state's Department of Toxic Substances Control regarding cleanup of the site, which closed in 1995. Until that time, Aerojet had manufactured and tested munitions and chemical weapons at the 800-acre site. Tests of soil and water samples from the surrounding area found low levels of some contaminants, including perchlorate, a rocket-fuel component that can interfere with thyroid functioning. Depleted uranium was also found, though according to the World Health Organization, the risks to the general public from exposure to low levels of DU are slight. Cleanup of the site has been ongoing since 2000. The questionnaire, accompanied by a four-page fact sheet, will be mailed to residents later this week, Murphy said. Chino Hills officials reviewed the information before it was finalized, although the city is not involved yet in the community education plan. "It's all governed by DTSC," said city spokeswoman Valerie McClung. The questionnaire asks respondents if they feel "adequately informed" about the cleanup efforts, and requests their "overall impression" of the Aerojet site. Murphy said there was no timeline yet for when the "community education plan" would actually be in place. After the questionnaires are collected, he said, the firm will again hold meetings to ask people what they want to know. For Councilwoman Gwenn Norton-Perry, the plan is taking far too long. "It's something they should have done beginning day one when it closed, when they began cleanup efforts," she said. The city's main concern, though, is that the site is cleaned up sufficiently, she said. "We continue to request that DTSC hold Aerojet's feet to the fire, so to speak, and ensure that ample remediation and sampling has been done," she said. "I don't believe that that site will ever be clean." Mason Stockstill can be reached by e-mail atmason.stockstill@dailybulletin.comor by phone at (909) 483-4643. Copyright © 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 45 Whitehaven News: Second waste site on cards Published on 18/08/2005 By Alan Irving COPELAND – already branded ‘the world’s nuclear dustbin’ – is set to gain a second site for dumping radioactive materials. People are being asked to give their views on the proposal as part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s draft strategy for cleaning up the country’s nuclear sites. The NDA wants another repository for low-level waste (LLW) because the existing national disposal site in Copeland (at Drigg) won’t be able to take all the extra material from decommissioning. Says the Authority: “It may be locally more acceptable and operationally more efficient to close the facility at Drigg and to focus on providing a new LLW facility at or close to Sellafield. This could potentially take advantage of improved transport links, reduced movement overall and the very latest in design experience.” But the revelation has led to calls for Copeland to get substantial cash compensation the same way as communities in other EEC countries which has nuclear facilities. “This could be a test case for us,” said Elaine Woodburn, the Copeland Council leader. “The message is: If there is any more waste coming into Copeland this community should be compensated. We have to be treated the same way as other European communities which have nuclear facilities on their patch. This could be a test case.” She went on: “We have an on-going problem of lorries going through Drigg and it is likely to increase, so I can see the value of having a low-level waste repository away from the village. “At the same time we would have to consider the impact of dealing with even more waste from the decommissioning. We have the skills and the knowledge to handle it but something has to be done to benefit the communities of Copeland. “Forty or fifty years ago it suited us to have Sellafield here with all the jobs but we are now in a different era and people expect and want more. We have to make sure that what we decide now is best for future generations.” Drigg resident Marjorie Higham: “It sounds like good news for Drigg, because we have had to put up with a lot over the last 46 years, but the site won’t close overnight. If there has to be a new dump it’s common sense to put it directly on to Sellafield itself but it’s not going to help the disadvantages Copeland suffers from. Radioactive waste is rubbish and it will continue to come in. Copeland should be compensated but it will be unfair if Drigg doesn’t get its fair share.” David Moore, chairman of the Sellafield Local Liaison Committee, the independent health and safety watchdog, asked: “Do we want to see Sellafield becoming nothing but a storage dump. Are we going to be left with three levels of dumps — low level, intermediate level and high level? What are we doing to get out of it? “This is one of the issues causing real concern. What we don’t want is a new low level waste dump opened up outside Sellafield or somewhere in the Copeland district. It would be more acceptable on the site but at the same time nuclear waste would still have to come into West Cumbria from all over the country by road or rail. We have to be compensated.” NDA chairman Sir Anthony Cleaver said: “Low level waste is extremely expensive to handle in this country. The cost is dramatically higher than in the United States. That’s an issue which could and should be tackled.” A public inquiry would almost certainly follow any planning application for a second dump. The Drigg site also takes radioactive items from hospitals and universities. ***************************************************************** 46 [NukeNet] Comparative Aerial Imagery of Hiroshima Pre- and Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:59:34 -0700 X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com caught runtime exception: No such file or directory X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/hiroshima01.htm Hiroshima, Japan Comparative Aerial Imagery of Hiroshima Pre- and Post Nuclear Blast The first image was taken on July 25, 1945 while the post-August 6, 1945 nuclear blast aerial was taken on August 11, 1945 Toggle mouse over and off image for comparison _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 47 asahi.com: 60 Years on/ Her A-bomb secret just wouldn't keep any longer 08/18/2005 By HAJIMU TAKEDA, The Asahi Shimbun Miwako Kanbe, 67, vividly recalls the day her mother told her to keep her A-bomb experience a secret. It was early summer five years after the end of World War II. Kanbe was a first year junior high school student. She and her mother had left Hiroshima, and moved to a castle town in Okayama Prefecture. One morning, Kanbe heard on the radio that war had erupted in the Korean Peninsula. She panicked, thinking nuclear weapons could be used. When she arrived at school, Kanbe passionately spoke to her classmates about her experiences in her hometown, Hiroshima: "A reddish purple light came showering down from above. Glass particles pierced my head. My friends were walking around looking like ghosts, with their skin all peeled off." A few days later, Kanbe found out she had earned new nicknames. Classmates were calling her "Pika-chan" (little "flash") or "Genbaku-san" (Miss A-bomb). The kids whispered and gossiped about her. Even her best friend, Taka-chan, declared: "A-bomb survivors are reeking invisible rays of radiation. If you play with them you get sick. You have to stay away from me." Taka-chan wouldn't even look Kanbe in the eye. When Kanbe returned home, her mother brushed away the tears from her face and said in a gentle yet firm voice, "Never, ever, tell anyone about the pika flash again." Mother and daughter linked their pinkies together and made a solemn pact. After that, Kanbe kept a tight rein on her memories of the atomic bomb, with just one lapse. At 19, Kanbe had become a nurse at a university hospital in Tokyo. She told everyone at her workplace that she was from Okayama Prefecture. In 1957, three months after she became a full-fledged nurse, the wife of a patient staying at the hospital said she wanted to introduce Kanbe to her cousin. Kanbe blurted out: "I can't get married. I am an A-bomb survivor." It was like a reflex, since Kanbe believed she would only bear physically weak children. Still, Kanbe was introduced to the young man who worked for a trading house. He never once mentioned the 1945 atomic bomb. One and a half years later, Kanbe married Haruhiko, who is now 76. They had four healthy children. Kanbe believed that blotting out her past was the way to ensure the family stayed happy. However, Kanbe's secret came knocking in an abrupt way. Her sister-in-law came to visit the Kanbe family's new home for the first time. She had a visible scar from atomic heat burns that ran from her cheek to her neck. While Kanbe had been exposed at a distance of 4 kilometers from ground zero, her sister-in-law had been only 500 meters from the blast. Kanbe beseeched her sister-in-law to stay inside the house; she became hypersensitive that her neighbors would catch a glimpse of the telltale scars. She told her children: "Your aunt was in a fire." Five years later, in March 1982, Kanbe's sister-in-law was hospitalized with cancer. She was dying. When Kanbe visited her at the hospital, she was surprised to see her sister-in-law looking grave. The sister-in-law admonished her, "Are you still keeping silent about the `flash'?" Abruptly, the ill woman pulled up her nightgown, exposing her chest. She wanted Kanbe to see her whole body, covered in scars. She said: "Take a photograph of this body of mine. You have to tell everyone out there. I don't care if you scare them. If you really love your children, you have to stop the A-bomb." Kanbe's sister-in-law died a week after. She was only 51. For Kanbe, the moment of truth came in the summer of 1984. Kanbe is still not sure why she ever raised her hand that day. She was attending a meeting for mothers, pertaining to war experiences, held at a university in Tokyo. Close to the end of the meeting, when the meeting leader invited participants to speak up, Kanbe's hand shot up. Her heart poured out: "I have kept silent about the fact that I am an A-bomb survivor. That's because I remember being shunned, as a young child. I remember people looking at me as if I were filthy." Thirty-four years had passed since Kanbe had spoken of her experiences to her classmates at school. This time, 200 people looked on intently as she told her story. Kanbe now lives in Tokyo. Her four children are all grown, and she has five grandchildren. She has told all her offspring about her experience as an A-bomb survivor. On Aug. 2, a picture-story show produced by her 13-year-old grandchild was put on stage at a peace meeting held in Hiroshima. The title was "Grandma's promise." Asked how she felt about her mother's words now, Kanbe replied: "I have always believed they were words of love-my mother's love for me. I still think so."(IHT/Asahi: August 18,2005) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written ***************************************************************** 48 The State: SRS operator hires Thurmond 08/18/2 Aiken attorney to represent firm as it seeks contract renewal By LAUREN MARKOE Washington Bureau WASHINGTON  The company that manages the Savannah River Site has hired Strom Thurmond Jr. to help retain its lucrative contract, but some say Washington Group International is most interested in cashing in on the Thurmond name. Why do they want him? Its not for his nuclear engineering acumen, his environmental science skills or ability to advocate for clean and safe energy for South Carolina, said Bob Guild of Columbia, an environmental lawyer and chairman of the S.C. chapter of the Sierra Club. He is being hired because of the presumption that he brings access to the movers and shakers that grease the skids of this decision-making process. Thurmond, 32, is the former U.S. attorney for South Carolina and the son of legendary U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. The elder Thurmond, who died in 2003, helped send billions of federal dollars to the Savannah River Site. Washington Group officials say they did not hire Thurmond for his name. Thats not why hes here. I dont know if that carries much weight anymore anyway, spokesman Jack Herrmann said. Thurmond will help Washington Group by taking the pulse of Aiken as the company pursues the new contract, Herrmann said. We like to get a fresh perspective on whats going on in the community, and Strom is very well-established in the community. We find him to be very candid and honest. In the past, the SRS contract has been worth about $1.5 billion a year to Washington Group, according to the Department of Energy, which owns SRS. Washington Groups Westinghouse Savannah River Co. has run the nuclear waste storage facility near Aiken for 15 years. But, for many years, it has not faced serious competition for the contract. This year, California-based Fluor Daniel and other firms are mounting a serious challenge to Washington Group. About 70 companies attended an informational session on bidding for the new contract held in Aiken last month. The current contract expires Sept. 30, 2006. Thurmonds hiring raised a few eyebrows at Fluor Daniel, which has opened an Aiken office to pursue the contract. Hes new to this area in terms of his career, said Dan Evans, the project director of Fluor Daniels Aiken office. I dont know how much he knows about it. I would suspect not a whole heck of a lot, but he might surprise me. Efforts Wednesday to reach Thurmond, a partner in the law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie and Thurmond in Aiken, were unsuccessful. Thurmond worked at SRS when he was in college  in its ecology lab. He has been criticized in the past for using his name to land a high-profile job. When he was 28 and just two years out of USC law school, President Bush  at Sen. Thurmonds request  nominated Thurmond Jr. for U.S. attorney from South Carolina. When sworn in on Nov. 19, 2001, Thurmond was 29 and the youngest U.S. attorney in the country. Despite the cries of nepotism, Thurmond Jr. earned the respect of many Democrats and Republicans. Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com. TheStateOnline ***************************************************************** 49 Seattle Times: Hanford takes 2 large cleanup steps Thursday, August 18, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM By Shannon Dininny The Associated Press JACKIE JOHNSTON / AP Bob Smith unlocks a gate yesterday to enter a nuclear waste "tank farm" where liquid and solid wastes are stored in large tanks at the Hanford nuclear reservation near Richland. RICHLAND  Workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation have made progress on one cleanup project and completed another at the highly contaminated site, the U.S. Department of Energy said yesterday. Finished was an 11-year effort to upgrade pipes that will carry highly radioactive waste. The progress was announced during a visit by the agency's new deputy secretary, Clay Sell, who was seeing Hanford for the first time. "We are naturally very proud of these accomplishments, and we're pleased with what they represent for the future of cleanup work here at Hanford," Sell said. Workers at the 586-square-mile site have been working since October 2003 to retrieve deteriorating drums and boxes of radioactive waste from burial grounds. Some of that material is believed to be highly radioactive transuranic waste, which can take millions of years to decay. Under the Tri-Party Agreement, the 1989 cleanup pact signed by the Energy Department, state Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, workers must complete the removal of all suspected transuranic waste  the equivalent of about 75,000 drums  by the end of 2010. Included in the pact are interim deadlines for each year of the project. Workers met this year's milestone five months ahead of schedule by retrieving more than 13,500 drums by late July, said Keith Klein, manager of the Energy Department's Richland operations office. The drums were buried in the 1970s and '80s. Progress on that project significantly reduces risk to the environment, Klein said. "Obviously, the work is going to get harder," Klein said. "It further underscores the need to get this waste out of the ground at Hanford." Workers also celebrated the completion of a project to upgrade miles of pipes linking 177 underground tanks. The tanks hold an estimated 53 million of gallons of highly radioactive waste less than 10 miles from the Columbia River. Waste from 149 aging single-shell tanks, some of which are known to have leaked, is to be transferred to 28 newer, double-walled tanks. However, pipes between the tanks, installed in the 1970s, also had only a single-wall construction that did not meet current regulations governing hazardous waste. About 14 miles of stainless-steel pipes were encased in a fiberglass outer jacket with a leak-detection system. In addition, thousands of feet of pipe were upgraded within the tank farms themselves and leading to a new waste-treatment plant. Workers completed the pipe project in mid-July  just past the June 30 deadline  but brought it in for $400 million, about $29 million under budget. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, whose district includes the Hanford site, was on hand for the celebration. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire also sent a letter of congratulations to workers. "These achievements represent meaningful progress in reducing long-term environmental risks on the Hanford reservation," the letter said. "And they are particularly good news at a time of some uncertainty over the future of this project." The Energy Department recently announced plans to scale back construction on the new waste-treatment plant amid soaring costs, seismic issues and construction problems. The plant, already about one-third built, will turn much of the waste into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear-waste repository. The state has raised concerns about the slowdown, fearing cleanup at the Hanford site could be delayed. "I know that the long history of the Hanford cleanup project has had its fair share of troubles, litigation and shifting deadlines," Sell said. "It is my hope that those days are behind us, and that we can continue to move the cleanup of Hanford steadily down the path toward completion. The successes we celebrate today further our belief that progress is being made here, all across this vast and diverse site." Hanford is the most-contaminated nuclear site in the country, with cleanup costs estimated between $50 billion and $60 billion. The work is scheduled to be completed by 2035. Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 50 KTVB.COM: DOE plans to detonate truck bombs to test nuclear site security 09:33 AM MDT on Thursday, August 18, 2005 Associated Press BOISE -- The federal government is planning to detonate two truck bombs in the eastern Idaho desert to see if U.S. nuclear installations could withstand such attacks from terrorists. U.S. Department of Energy spokesman Tim Jackson says the exact amount of explosives is classified, but it will be no more than the equivalent of 15,000 pounds of TNT. Officials want to detonate the first bomb this fall and the second in 2006. The first test will focus on the effects of the blast on existing security fixtures used at nuclear installations. The second detonation would test newer protective devices and additional security barriers or vehicles. More headlines... ***************************************************************** 51 CGT: Deputy energy secretary visits Hanford, announces progress on two projects Corvallis Gazette-Times: [gazettetimes.com] Last modified Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:43 PM PDT By SHANNON DININNY Associated Press writer RICHLAND, Wash. — Workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation have made progress on one cleanup project and completed another at the highly contaminated site, the U.S. Department of Energy said Wednesday. Finished was an 11-year effort to upgrade pipes that will carry highly radioactive waste. The progress was announced during a visit by the agency's new deputy secretary, Clay Sell, who was seeing Hanford for the first time. ``We are naturally very proud of these accomplishments, and we're pleased with what they represent for the future of cleanup work here at Hanford,'' Sell said. Workers at the 586-square-mile site have been working since October 2003 to retrieve deteriorating drums and boxes of radioactive waste from burial grounds. Some of that material is believed to be highly radioactive transuranic waste, which can take millions of years to decay. Under the Tri-Party Agreement, the 1989 cleanup pact signed by the Energy Department, state Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, workers must complete the removal of all suspected transuranic waste — the equivalent of about 75,000 drums — by the end of 2010. Included in the pact are interim deadlines for each year of the project. Workers met this year's milestone five months ahead of schedule by retrieving more than 13,500 drums by late July, said Keith Klein, manager of the Energy Department's Richland operations office. The drums were buried in the 1970s and '80s. Progress on that project significantly reduces risk to the environment, Klein said. ``Obviously, the work is going to get harder,'' Klein said. ``It further underscores the need to get this waste out of the ground at Hanford.'' Workers also celebrated the completion of a project to upgrade miles of pipes linking 177 underground tanks. The tanks hold an estimated 53 million of gallons of highly radioactive waste less than 10 miles from the Columbia River. Waste from 149 aging single-shell tanks, some of which are known to have leaked, is to be transferred to 28 newer, double-walled tanks. However, pipes between the tanks, installed in the 1970s, also had only a single-wall construction that did not meet current regulations governing hazardous waste. About 14 miles of stainless steel pipes were encased in a fiberglass outer jacket with a leak detection system. In addition, thousands of feet of pipe were upgraded within the tank farms themselves and leading to a new waste treatment plant. Workers completed the pipe project in mid-July — just past the June 30 deadline — but brought it in for $400 million, about $29 million under budget. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., whose district includes the Hanford site, was on hand for the celebration Wednesday. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire also sent a letter of congratulations to workers. ``These achievements represent meaningful progress in reducing long-term environmental risks on the Hanford reservation,'' the letter said. ``And they are particularly good news at a time of some uncertainty over the future of this project.'' The Energy Department announced recently plans to scale back construction on the new waste treatment plant amid soaring costs, seismic issues and construction problems. The plant, already about one-third built, will turn much of the waste into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository. The state has raised concerns about the slowdown, fearing cleanup at the Hanford site could be delayed. ``I know that the long history of the Hanford cleanup project has had its fair share of troubles, litigation and shifting deadlines,'' Sell said. ``It is my hope that those days are behind us, and that we can continue to move the cleanup of Hanford steadily down the path toward completion. The successes we celebrate today further our belief that progress is being made here, all across this vast and diverse site.'' For 40 years, the Hanford nuclear site made plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, beginning as part of the top-secret Manhattan project to build the atomic bomb. Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the country, with cleanup costs estimated between $50 billion and $60 billion. The work is scheduled to be completed by 2035. Copyright © 2005 • Lee Enterprises ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************